Literature DB >> 12232500

Knowledge of stimulus repetition affects the magnitude and spatial distribution of low-frequency event-related brain potentials.

Brett A Clementz1, Stefanie K Barber, Jaqueline R Dzau.   

Abstract

Rate effects are defined as a reduction in amplitude of an evoked brain response with increasing stimulus frequency. In auditory paired-stimulus paradigms, a smaller amplitude evoked response to the second stimulus at a latency of 50 ms has been proposed to index a preattentive sensory gating mechanism. The present study investigated the possibility that expectancy and/or attentional biases could alter evoked potentials associated with rate effects. EEG data were recorded from 30 channels while subjects received 240 trials of 1, 2 or 3 click stimuli (with successive stimuli being separated by 500-ms intervals). Half of the subjects knew (blocked condition) and half of the subjects did not know (mixed condition) how many stimuli they would receive on a given trial. Subjects in the blocked condition had a significantly larger rate effect than subjects in the mixed condition. This effect was present only for low-frequency components of the event-related brain potential (ERP; below 10 Hz) and occurred from 30 to 60, 90 to 160 and 190 to 260 ms after stimulus presentation (P(1)-N(1)-P(2) complex). Mixed condition subjects also had larger contributions to their ERPs from temporal channels. These results suggest that the rate effect can be significantly altered by expectancy, and they are inconsistent with the thesis that ERPs near 50 ms in a paired-stimulus paradigm solely index a preattentive sensory gating mechanism. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12232500     DOI: 10.1159/000064444

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  10 in total

1.  Gamma and beta neural activity evoked during a sensory gating paradigm: effects of auditory, somatosensory and cross-modal stimulation.

Authors:  Michael A Kisley; Zoe M Cornwell
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  The impact of when, what and how predictions on auditory speech perception.

Authors:  Serge Pinto; Pascale Tremblay; Anahita Basirat; Marc Sato
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Event-related potential abnormalities in schizophrenia: a failure to "gate in" salient information?

Authors:  Colleen A Brenner; Paul D Kieffaber; Brett A Clementz; Jason K Johannesen; Anantha Shekhar; Brian F O'Donnell; William P Hetrick
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 4.939

4.  Hemispheric differences in auditory oddball responses during monaural versus binaural stimulation.

Authors:  Casey S Gilmore; Brett A Clementz; Patrick Berg
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 2.997

5.  Native experience with a tone language enhances pitch discrimination and the timing of neural responses to pitch change.

Authors:  Ryan J Giuliano; Peter Q Pfordresher; Emily M Stanley; Shalini Narayana; Nicole Y Y Wicha
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-08-03

6.  Systemic Nicotine Increases Gain and Narrows Receptive Fields in A1 via Integrated Cortical and Subcortical Actions.

Authors:  Caitlin Askew; Irakli Intskirveli; Raju Metherate
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2017-06-22

7.  Processing symbolic magnitude information conveyed by number words and by scalar adjectives.

Authors:  Arnold R Kochari; Herbert Schriefers
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.143

8.  The ups and downs of temporal orienting: a review of auditory temporal orienting studies and a model associating the heterogeneous findings on the auditory N1 with opposite effects of attention and prediction.

Authors:  Kathrin Lange
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Self-initiation and temporal cueing of monaural tones reduce the auditory N1 and P2.

Authors:  Paul F Sowman; Anni Kuusik; Blake W Johnson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Good practice for conducting and reporting MEG research.

Authors:  Joachim Gross; Sylvain Baillet; Gareth R Barnes; Richard N Henson; Arjan Hillebrand; Ole Jensen; Karim Jerbi; Vladimir Litvak; Burkhard Maess; Robert Oostenveld; Lauri Parkkonen; Jason R Taylor; Virginie van Wassenhove; Michael Wibral; Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 6.556

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.