Rewarding prayers

From Brede Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Paper (help)
Rewarding prayers
Authors: Uffe Schjødt, Hans Stødkilde-Jørgensen, Armin W. Geertz, Andreas Roepstorff
Citation: Neuroscience Letters 443 (3): 165-168. 2008 October
Database(s): PubMed (PMID/18682275)
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.07.068.
Web: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Article: BASE Google Scholar PubMed
Restricted: DTU Digital Library
Other: NIF
Format: BibTeX Template from PMID
Extract: Talairach coordinates from linked PDF: CSV-formated wiki-formated

Rewarding prayers is a scientific paper reporting a neuroimaging study with functional magnetic resonance imaging on religious behavior in the form of silent religious prayer.

There is supplementary data to the article. This document shortly describes a pilot study as well as giving examples on the prayers.

A related paper by the same authors is Highly religious participants recruit areas of social cognition in personal prayer.


[edit] Subjects

Subject group #1 (help)
Description: Young healthy Danish christians
Subjects/♂/♀: 20 / 6 / 14
Age: 25.4 (21–32)
Nationality: Danish
Approval: define approval

Group 1 of 20 christians with 6 males and 14 females were included in the study. The Danish group had a mean age of 25.4 with a range from 21 to 32.

Compared to the demographic information the subjects in this paper is likely to be the same subjects used in the paper Highly religious participants recruit areas of social cognition in personal prayer.

[edit] Scanning

MRI Scanning (help)
Mode: fMRI
Scanner: GE Signa 1.5T
Type: Echo planar imaging

(TR=3000ms, TE=?, FA=?)

Slices: 30 (thickness=3.0mm , gap=1.0mm) oriented Axial
Size: matrix=64 x 64
Laboratory: missing laboratory

For fMRI Echo planar imaging scans were acquired with a 1.5T GE Signa.

[edit] Result

Scans where processed and analyzed with SPM5 A region of interest analysis on the bilateral caudate nucleus was made with WFU PickAtlas. The main effect of religious praying in caudate nucleus is stated as significant.

[edit] Critique

  1. No quantitative statistics is shown for the results, though a plot is made of the contrast estimates.
Personal tools