Cargando…

Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence

One’s own name seems to have a special status in the processing of incoming information. In event-related potential (ERP) studies this preferential status has mainly been associated with higher P300 to one’s own name than to other names. Some studies showed preferential responses to own name even fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tacikowski, Pawel, Cygan, Hanna B., Nowicka, Anna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983482/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24772076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00194
_version_ 1782311327573737472
author Tacikowski, Pawel
Cygan, Hanna B.
Nowicka, Anna
author_facet Tacikowski, Pawel
Cygan, Hanna B.
Nowicka, Anna
author_sort Tacikowski, Pawel
collection PubMed
description One’s own name seems to have a special status in the processing of incoming information. In event-related potential (ERP) studies this preferential status has mainly been associated with higher P300 to one’s own name than to other names. Some studies showed preferential responses to own name even for earlier ERP components. However, instead of just being self-specific, these effects could be related to the processing of any highly relevant and/or frequently encountered stimuli. If this is the case: (1) processing of other highly relevant and highly familiar names (e.g., names of friends, partners, siblings, etc.) should be associated with similar ERP responses as processing of one’s own name and (2) processing of own and close others’ names should result in larger amplitudes of early and late ERP components than processing of less relevant and less familiar names (e.g., names of famous people, names of strangers, etc.). To test this hypothesis we measured and analyzed ERPs from 62 scalp electrodes in 22 subjects. Subjects performed a speeded two-choice recognition task—familiar vs. unfamiliar—with one’s own name being treated as one of the familiar names. All stimuli were presented visually. We found that amplitudes of P200, N250 and P300 did not differ between one’s own and close-other’s names. Crucially, they were significantly larger to own and close-other’s names than to other names (unknown and famous for P300 and unknown for P200 and N250). Our findings suggest that preferential processing of one’s own name is due to its personal-relevance and/or familiarity factors. This pattern of results speaks for a common preference in processing of different kinds of socially relevant stimuli.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3983482
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39834822014-04-25 Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence Tacikowski, Pawel Cygan, Hanna B. Nowicka, Anna Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience One’s own name seems to have a special status in the processing of incoming information. In event-related potential (ERP) studies this preferential status has mainly been associated with higher P300 to one’s own name than to other names. Some studies showed preferential responses to own name even for earlier ERP components. However, instead of just being self-specific, these effects could be related to the processing of any highly relevant and/or frequently encountered stimuli. If this is the case: (1) processing of other highly relevant and highly familiar names (e.g., names of friends, partners, siblings, etc.) should be associated with similar ERP responses as processing of one’s own name and (2) processing of own and close others’ names should result in larger amplitudes of early and late ERP components than processing of less relevant and less familiar names (e.g., names of famous people, names of strangers, etc.). To test this hypothesis we measured and analyzed ERPs from 62 scalp electrodes in 22 subjects. Subjects performed a speeded two-choice recognition task—familiar vs. unfamiliar—with one’s own name being treated as one of the familiar names. All stimuli were presented visually. We found that amplitudes of P200, N250 and P300 did not differ between one’s own and close-other’s names. Crucially, they were significantly larger to own and close-other’s names than to other names (unknown and famous for P300 and unknown for P200 and N250). Our findings suggest that preferential processing of one’s own name is due to its personal-relevance and/or familiarity factors. This pattern of results speaks for a common preference in processing of different kinds of socially relevant stimuli. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3983482/ /pubmed/24772076 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00194 Text en Copyright © 2014 Tacikowski, Cygan and Nowicka. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Tacikowski, Pawel
Cygan, Hanna B.
Nowicka, Anna
Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence
title Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence
title_full Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence
title_fullStr Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence
title_full_unstemmed Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence
title_short Neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: ERP evidence
title_sort neural correlates of own and close-other’s name recognition: erp evidence
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983482/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24772076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00194
work_keys_str_mv AT tacikowskipawel neuralcorrelatesofownandcloseothersnamerecognitionerpevidence
AT cyganhannab neuralcorrelatesofownandcloseothersnamerecognitionerpevidence
AT nowickaanna neuralcorrelatesofownandcloseothersnamerecognitionerpevidence