E Garcia-Rill1, K Moran, J Garcia, W M Findley, K Walton, B Strotman, R R Llinas. 1. Center for Translational Neuroscience, Department of Neurobiology & Dev. Sci., University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Slot 847, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. GarciaRillEdgar@uams.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the source localization(s) of the midlatency auditory magnetic response M50, the equivalent of the P50 potential, a sleep state-dependent waveform known to habituate to repetitive stimulation. METHODS: We used a paired stimulus paradigm at interstimulus intervals of 250, 500 and 1000 ms, and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings were subjected to computational methods for current density reconstruction, blind source separation, time-frequency analysis, and data visualization to characterize evoked dynamics. RESULTS: Each subject showed localization of a source for primary auditory evoked responses in the region of the auditory cortex, usually at a 20-30 ms latency. However, responses at 40-70 ms latency that also decreased following the second stimulus of a pair were not localizable to the auditory cortex, rather showing multiple sources usually including the frontal lobes. CONCLUSIONS: The M50 response, which shows habituation to repetitive stimulation, was not localized to the auditory cortex, but showed multiple sources including frontal lobes. SIGNIFICANCE: These MEG results suggest that sources for the M50 response may represent non-auditory, perhaps arousal-related, diffuse projections to the cortex.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the source localization(s) of the midlatency auditory magnetic response M50, the equivalent of the P50 potential, a sleep state-dependent waveform known to habituate to repetitive stimulation. METHODS: We used a paired stimulus paradigm at interstimulus intervals of 250, 500 and 1000 ms, and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings were subjected to computational methods for current density reconstruction, blind source separation, time-frequency analysis, and data visualization to characterize evoked dynamics. RESULTS: Each subject showed localization of a source for primary auditory evoked responses in the region of the auditory cortex, usually at a 20-30 ms latency. However, responses at 40-70 ms latency that also decreased following the second stimulus of a pair were not localizable to the auditory cortex, rather showing multiple sources usually including the frontal lobes. CONCLUSIONS: The M50 response, which shows habituation to repetitive stimulation, was not localized to the auditory cortex, but showed multiple sources including frontal lobes. SIGNIFICANCE: These MEG results suggest that sources for the M50 response may represent non-auditory, perhaps arousal-related, diffuse projections to the cortex.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Thomas Grunwald; Nashaat N Boutros; Nico Pezer; Joachim von Oertzen; Guillen Fernández; Carlo Schaller; Christian E Elger Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Adam J Woods; John W Philbeck; Kenneth Chelette; Robert D Skinner; Edgar Garcia-Rill; Mark Mennemeier Journal: Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) Date: 2011 Impact factor: 1.579
Authors: R Whit Hall; Tiffany Wallace Huitt; Richa Thapa; D Keith Williams; K J S Anand; Edgar Garcia-Rill Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2008-03-26 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Nash N Boutros; Klevest Gjini; Simon B Eickhoff; Horst Urbach; Mark E Pflieger Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2012-11-04 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Andrew R Mayer; David Ruhl; Flannery Merideth; Josef Ling; Faith M Hanlon; Juan Bustillo; Jose Cañive Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Sanja Josef Golubic; Cheryl J Aine; Julia M Stephen; John C Adair; Janice E Knoefel; Selma Supek Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 6.556