English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The current study made participants sit to complete both the implicit sequence learning and the inclusion/exclusion tasks with the latter just after the former, and used eyes-closed and eyes-open resting states fMRI and their difference to test the ecological validity of the mutually exclusive theory (MET) in implicit-sequence-learning consciousness. (1) The behavioral and neuroimaging data did not support the process dissociation procedure, but did fit well with the MET. The correct inclusion-task response and the incorrect exclusion-task response were mutually exclusive with each other. The relevant brain areas of the two responses were either different or opposite in the eyes-closed and eyes-open resting-states and their difference. (2) ALFFs in eyes-closed and eyes-open resting-states and their difference were diversely related to the four MET knowledge in implicit sequence learning. The relevant brain areas of the four MET knowledge in the eyes-closed and eyes-open resting-state were the cerebral cortex responsible for vision, attention, cognitive control and consciousness, which could be called the upper consciousness network, and there were more relevant brain areas in the eyes-open resting-state than in the eye-closed resting-state.The relevant brain areas in ALFFs-difference were the subcortical nucleus responsible for sensory awareness, memory and implicit sequence learning, which could be called the lower consciousness network. ALFFs-difference could predict the four MET knowledge as a quantitative transition sensitivity index from internal feeling to external stimulus. (3) The relevant resting-state brain areas of the four MET knowledge were either different (for most brain areas, if some brain areas were related to one MET knowledge, they were not related to the other three MET knowledge) or opposite (for some brain areas, if some brain areas were positively related to one MET knowledge, they were negatively related to other MET knowledge). With the participants' control/consciousness level increasing from no-acquisition to controllable knowledge step by step, the positively relevant resting-state brain areas of the four MET knowledge changed from some consciousness network and the motor network, to some consciousness network and the implicit learning network, and then to some consciousness network; and the negatively relevant resting-state brain areas of the four MET knowledge changed from some consciousness network and visual perception network, to some consciousness network, then to some consciousness network and the motor network, and then to some consciousness network, the implicit learning network, and the motor network. In conclusion, the current study found the ecological validity of the MET was good in sitting posture and eyes-closed and eyes-open resting-states, ALFFs in eyes-closed and eyes-open resting-states and their difference could predict the four MET knowledge diversely, and the four MET knowledge had different or opposite relevant resting-state brain areas.

The ecological validity of MET was favourable in sitting implicit sequence learning consciousness by eyes closed and eyes open resting states fMRI