IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0128343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual Topographic Variability Is Inherent to Cortical Physiology but Task-Related Differences May Be Noise

Author

Listed:
  • Luis F H Basile
  • João R Sato
  • Henrique A Pasquini
  • Mirna D Lozano
  • Mariana P Nucci
  • Bruna Velasques
  • Pedro Ribeiro
  • Renato T Ramos
  • Renato Anghina

Abstract

The observation of highly variable sets of association neocortical areas across individuals, containing the estimated generators of Slow Potentials (SPs) and beta oscillations, lead to the persistence in individual analyses. This brought to notice an unexpected within individual topographic similarity between task conditions, despite our original interest in task-related differences. A recent related work explored the quantification of the similarity in beta topography between largely differing tasks. In this article, we used Independent Component Analysis (ICA) for the decomposition of beta activity from a visual attention task, and compared it with quiet resting, recorded by 128-channel EEG in 62 subjects. We statistically tested whether each ICA component obtained in one condition could be explained by a linear regression model based on the topographic patterns from the other condition, in each individual. Results were coherent with the previous report, showing a high topographic similarity between conditions. From an average of 12 beta component maps obtained for each task, over 80% were satisfactorily explained by the complementary task. Once more, the component maps including those considered unexplained, putatively “task-specific”, had their scalp distribution and estimated cortical sources highly variable across subjects. These findings are discussed along with other studies based on individual data and the present fMRI results, reinforcing the increasingly accepted view that individual variability in sets of active neocortical association areas is not noise, but intrinsic to cortical physiology. Actual ‘noise’, mainly stemming from group “brain averaging” and the emphasis on statistical differences as opposed to similarities, may explain the overall hardship in replication of the vast literature on supposed task-specific forms of activity, and the ever inconclusive status of a universal functional mapping of cortical association areas. A new hypothesis, that individuals may use the same idiosyncratic sets of areas, at least by their fraction of activity in the sub-delta and beta range, in various non-sensory-motor forms of conscious activities, is a corollary of the discussed variability.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis F H Basile & João R Sato & Henrique A Pasquini & Mirna D Lozano & Mariana P Nucci & Bruna Velasques & Pedro Ribeiro & Renato T Ramos & Renato Anghina, 2015. "Individual Topographic Variability Is Inherent to Cortical Physiology but Task-Related Differences May Be Noise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128343
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128343
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128343&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0128343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luis F H Basile & João R Sato & Milkes Y Alvarenga & Nelson Henrique Jr. & Henrique A Pasquini & William Alfenas & Sérgio Machado & Bruna Velasques & Pedro Ribeiro & Roberto Piedade & Renato Anghinah , 2013. "Lack of Systematic Topographic Difference between Attention and Reasoning Beta Correlates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-11, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.