Literature DB >> 21950767

An evaluation of P50 paired-click methodologies.

Anna Dalecki1, Rodney J Croft, Stuart J Johnstone.   

Abstract

The utility of P50 paired-click measures is limited by their unestablished reliability, unknown effects of time, and long protocol. This study measured within-session reliability, temporal course, effect of varying interpair interval (IPI), and peak definition and ratio calculation methods on P50 paired-click measures in healthy participants. Results indicate higher reliability for difference (ICC=.72) than ratio (ICC=.44) method; when P50 peaks are defined as baseline-to-peak than peak-to-peak; time-related changes; and comparable P50 paired-click measures at long (9 s) and short (3-7 s) IPIs. After controlling for time effects, P50 paired-click measures are relatively reliable within-session and are best measured using the difference method and defined as baseline-to-peak amplitude; time effects must be taken into account when measuring P50 paired-click measures in a long paradigm; and IPI can be shortened in studies with healthy samples.
Copyright © 2011 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21950767     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01262.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  10 in total

1.  Auditory sensory gating in young adolescents with early-onset psychosis: a comparison with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Authors:  Cecilie Koldbæk Lemvigh; Jens Richardt Møllegaard Jepsen; Birgitte Fagerlund; Anne Katrine Pagsberg; Birte Yding Glenthøj; Jacob Rydkjær; Bob Oranje
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 7.853

2.  Differential effects of estrogen and testosterone on auditory sensory gating in rats.

Authors:  Shane J Thwaites; Maarten van den Buuse; Andrea Gogos
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2013-08-09       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  Disruption of sensory gating by moderate alcohol doses.

Authors:  Alfredo L Sklar; Sara Jo Nixon
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Effects of COMT genotype on sensory gating and its modulation by nicotine: Differences in low and high P50 suppressors.

Authors:  S de la Salle; D Smith; J Choueiry; D Impey; T Philippe; H Dort; A Millar; P Albert; V Knott
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 3.590

5.  The PDE5 inhibitor vardenafil does not affect auditory sensory gating in rats and humans.

Authors:  O A H Reneerkens; A Sambeth; M A Van Duinen; A Blokland; H W M Steinbusch; J Prickaerts
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 4.530

6.  Expanding our understanding of sensory gating in children with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Jewel E Crasta; William J Gavin; Patricia L Davies
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Sensory Filtering and Sensory Memory in Breast Cancer Survivors.

Authors:  Robert D Melara; James C Root; Raquel Bibi; Tim A Ahles
Journal:  Clin EEG Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 2.046

8.  New paradigm for auditory paired pulse suppression.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Takeuchi; Shunsuke Sugiyama; Koji Inui; Kousuke Kanemoto; Makoto Nishihara
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Normal hearing young adults with mild tinnitus: Reduced inhibition as measured through sensory gating.

Authors:  Julia Campbell; Connor Bean; Alison LaBrec
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2018-10-02

10.  Sensory Gating Deficits and their Clinical Correlates in Drug-Free/Drug-Naive Patients with Schizophrenia.

Authors:  Ravichandra Karkal; Nishant Goyal; Sai Krishna Tikka; Roshan V Khanande; Anil Kakunje; Christoday R J Khess
Journal:  Indian J Psychol Med       Date:  2018 May-Jun
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.