Literature DB >> 17899352

Sensitivity of EEG and MEG to the N1 and P2 auditory evoked responses modulated by spectral complexity of sounds.

Antoine J Shahin1, Larry E Roberts, Lee M Miller, Kelly L McDonald, Claude Alain.   

Abstract

Acoustic complexity of a stimulus has been shown to modulate the electromagnetic N1 (latency approximately 110 ms) and P2 (latency 190 ms) auditory evoked responses. We compared the relative sensitivity of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) to these neural correlates of sensation. Simultaneous EEG and MEG were recorded while participants listened to three variants of a piano tone. The piano stimuli differed in their number of harmonics: the fundamental frequency (f ( 0 )), only, or f ( 0 ) and the first two or eight harmonics. The root mean square (RMS) of the amplitude of P2 but not N1 increased with spectral complexity of the piano tones in EEG and MEG. The RMS increase for P2 was more prominent in EEG than MEG, suggesting important radial sources contributing to the P2 only in EEG. Source analysis revealing contributions from radial and tangential sources was conducted to test this hypothesis. Source waveforms revealed a significant increase in the P2 radial source amplitude in EEG with increased spectral complexity of piano tones. The P2 of the tangential source waveforms also increased in amplitude with increased spectral complexity in EEG and MEG. The P2 auditory evoked response is thus represented by both tangential (gyri) and radial (sulci) activities. The radial contribution is expressed preferentially in EEG, highlighting the importance of combining EEG with MEG where complex source configurations are suspected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17899352      PMCID: PMC4373076          DOI: 10.1007/s10548-007-0031-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Topogr        ISSN: 0896-0267            Impact factor:   3.020


  36 in total

1.  Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training.

Authors:  K Tremblay; N Kraus; T McGee; C Ponton; B Otis
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Comparison of the amplitude/intensity function of the auditory evoked N1m and N1 components.

Authors:  M Neukirch; U Hegerl; R Kötitz; H Dorn; J Gallinat; W M Herrmann; U Gallinat
Journal:  Neuropsychobiology       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.328

3.  Localization of human supratemporal auditory areas from intracerebral auditory evoked potentials using distributed source models.

Authors:  Blaise Yvert; Catherine Fischer; Olivier Bertrand; Jacques Pernier
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Whole-head mapping of middle-latency auditory evoked magnetic fields.

Authors:  J P Mäkelä; M Hämäläinen; R Hari; L McEvoy
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1994-09

5.  Intracerebral sources of human auditory-evoked potentials.

Authors:  T W Picton; C Alain; D L Woods; M S John; M Scherg; P Valdes-Sosa; J Bosch-Bayard; N J Trujillo
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Functional specialization in rhesus monkey auditory cortex.

Authors:  B Tian; D Reser; A Durham; A Kustov; J P Rauschecker
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-04-13       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Cortical evoked potentials in monozygotic twins and unrelated subjects: comparisons of exogenous and endogenous components.

Authors:  W W Surwillo
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 2.805

8.  Comparison of late components in simultaneously recorded event-related electrical potentials and event-related magnetic fields.

Authors:  R Siedenberg; D S Goodin; M J Aminoff; H A Rowley; T P Roberts
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-08

9.  A combined functional in vivo measure for primary and secondary auditory cortices.

Authors:  A Engelien; M Schulz; B Ross; V Arolt; C Pantev
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 10.  Controversies in neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in localization of interictal epileptiform activity: Pro.

Authors:  Gregory L Barkley
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.708

View more
  20 in total

1.  A novel EEG paradigm to simultaneously and rapidly assess the functioning of auditory and visual pathways.

Authors:  Kristina C Backer; Andrew S Kessler; Laurel A Lawyer; David P Corina; Lee M Miller
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Preliminary evidence for reduced auditory lateral suppression in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Erin M Ramage; David M Weintraub; Sally J Vogel; Griffin P Sutton; Erik N Ringdahl; Daniel N Allen; Joel S Snyder
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2015-01-10       Impact factor: 4.939

3.  Theta band oscillations reflect more than entrainment: behavioral and neural evidence demonstrates an active chunking process.

Authors:  Xiangbin Teng; Xing Tian; Keith Doelling; David Poeppel
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.386

4.  Electrophysiological Evidence of Early Cortical Sensitivity to Human Conspecific Mimic Voice as a Distinct Category of Natural Sound.

Authors:  William J Talkington; Jeremy Donai; Alexandra S Kadner; Molly L Layne; Andrew Forino; Sijin Wen; Si Gao; Margeaux M Gray; Alexandria J Ashraf; Gabriela N Valencia; Brandon D Smith; Stephanie K Khoo; Stephen J Gray; Norman Lass; Julie A Brefczynski-Lewis; Susannah Engdahl; David Graham; Chris A Frum; James W Lewis
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Translating Adult Electrophysiology Findings to Younger Patient Populations: Difficulty Measuring 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses in Typically Developing Children and Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Authors:  J Christopher Edgar; Charles L Fisk; Song Liu; Juhi Pandey; John D Herrington; Robert T Schultz; Timothy P L Roberts
Journal:  Dev Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Action planning and predictive coding when speaking.

Authors:  Jun Wang; Daniel H Mathalon; Brian J Roach; James Reilly; Sarah K Keedy; John A Sweeney; Judith M Ford
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Brain oscillations during semantic evaluation of speech.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin; Terence W Picton; Lee M Miller
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 2.310

8.  Sustained neural rhythms reveal endogenous oscillations supporting speech perception.

Authors:  Sander van Bree; Ediz Sohoglu; Matthew H Davis; Benedikt Zoefel
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Discrimination of timbre in early auditory responses of the human brain.

Authors:  Jaeho Seol; MiAe Oh; June Sic Kim; Seung-Hyun Jin; Sun Il Kim; Chun Kee Chung
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Electrophysiological evidence for an early processing of human voices.

Authors:  Ian Charest; Cyril R Pernet; Guillaume A Rousselet; Ileana Quiñones; Marianne Latinus; Sarah Fillion-Bilodeau; Jean-Pierre Chartrand; Pascal Belin
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 3.288

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.