Literature DB >> 11240214

Sensory gating of auditory evoked potentials in rats: effects of repetitive stimulation and the interstimulus interval.

N M de Bruin1, B A Ellenbroek, W J van Schaijk, A R Cools, A M Coenen, E L van Luijtelaar.   

Abstract

In the P50 gating or conditioning-testing (C-T) paradigm, the P50 response, a small positive midlatency ( approximately 50 ms after stimulus onset) component of the human auditory evoked potential (AEP), is reduced towards the second click (S2) as compared to the response to the first click (S1). This phenomenon is called sensory gating. The putative function of sensory gating is thought to protect subjects from being flooded by irrelevant stimuli. Comparative studies have been done in rats in order to elucidate the underlying neural substrate of sensory gating. However, for a direct comparison of rat and human AEP components, it is imperative for both components to show similar characteristics. The amount of sensory gating in humans is dependent on repetitive stimulation and the interstimulus interval (ISI). In the present study effects of repetitive stimulation (Experiment 1) and various ISIs (Experiment 2) were determined on rat AEP components. The results demonstrate that gating is not limited to a restricted cortical area or a single midlatency component and that repetitive stimulation and ISI affect gating of several rat AEP components. Components such as the vertex P17 and N22 show a decrease in gating within several S1-S2 presentations, mainly due to a decrease in amplitude to S1 (Experiment 1). Gating for vertex components (such as the P17, N22 and N50) is ISI dependent (Experiment 2), but there is no interval in the 200-600 ms range at which optimal gating occurs. The ISI effects on gating are due to an increase of the amplitude to S2. The results have implications for the discussion about the rat homologue of the human P50.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11240214     DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00084-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Psychol        ISSN: 0301-0511            Impact factor:   3.251


  8 in total

Review 1.  Deconstructing schizophrenia: an overview of the use of endophenotypes in order to understand a complex disorder.

Authors:  David L Braff; Robert Freedman; Nicholas J Schork; Irving I Gottesman
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2006-11-06       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 2.  Pre-attentive processing and schizophrenia: animal studies.

Authors:  Bart A Ellenbroek
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2003-12-04       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  The effects of ketamine vary among inbred mouse strains and mimic schizophrenia for the P80, but not P20 or N40 auditory ERP components.

Authors:  Patrick M Connolly; Christina Maxwell; Yuling Liang; Jonathan B Kahn; Stephen J Kanes; Ted Abel; Raquel E Gur; Bruce I Turetsky; Steven J Siegel
Journal:  Neurochem Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.996

Review 4.  Neurophysiological biomarkers for drug development in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Daniel C Javitt; Kevin M Spencer; Gunvant K Thaker; Georg Winterer; Mihály Hajós
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  State-dependent changes in auditory sensory gating in different cortical areas in rats.

Authors:  Renli Qi; Minghong Li; Yuanye Ma; Nanhui Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Acute administration of roflumilast enhances sensory gating in healthy young humans in a randomized trial.

Authors:  Pim R A Heckman; Marlies A Van Duinen; Arjan Blokland; Tolga Uz; Jos Prickaerts; Anke Sambeth
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.530

7.  Estimation of auditory steady-state responses based on the averaging of independent EEG epochs.

Authors:  Pavel Prado-Gutierrez; Eduardo Martínez-Montes; Alejandro Weinstein; Matías Zañartu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Event-related potentials evoked by passive visuospatial perception in rats and humans reveal common denominators in information processing.

Authors:  M F A Hauser; V Wiescholleck; J Colitti-Klausnitzer; C Bellebaum; Denise Manahan-Vaughan
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.270

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.