Literature DB >> 2428592

Midlatency auditory evoked responses: differential recovery cycle characteristics.

R J Erwin, J S Buchwald.   

Abstract

Middle latency responses (MLRs), in the 10-100 msec latency range evoked by click stimuli, were examined in two sets of 7 adult subjects utilizing 5 randomly ordered rates of stimulus presentation: 0.5/sec, 1/sec, 5/sec, 8/sec and 10/sec. Evoked potentials were collected in 250 trial averages for each rate, and a replication across rates yielded 500 trial averages. Peak-to-peak measurements for Pa-Nb and P1-Nb components revealed that the P1 component was reduced in amplitude or absent at the faster rates, while the amplitude of the Pa component remained unchanged across rates. In addition, the latency of Pa was significantly longer for the faster rates of stimulation. These findings were similar across both mastoid and sternovertebral references. Taken together with previous work, these data suggest that the human Pa and P1 potentials reflect different generator systems. Moreover, the physiological similarities between the human P1 potential and the cat wave A suggest that in the human, as in the cat, this potential may be generated within the ascending reticular activating system, whereas the physiological similarities between the human Pa and the cat wave 7, as well as previous clinical data, suggest an auditory cortex origin of this component.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 2428592     DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(86)90075-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0013-4694


  27 in total

1.  Method for the deconvolution of auditory steady-state responses.

Authors:  G Sparacino; A Nale; R Santarelli; E Arslan
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Cold pressor stimulation diminishes P50 amplitude in normal subjects.

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

3.  Nicotine suppresses the P13 auditory evoked potential by acting on the pedunculopontine nucleus in the rat.

Authors:  N Mamiya; R Buchanan; T Wallace; R D Skinner; E Garcia-Rill
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Can prepared responses be stored subcortically?

Authors:  Anthony N Carlsen; Romeo Chua; J Timothy Inglis; David J Sanderson; Ian M Franks
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-10-09       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  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

6.  P50 sensory gating and attentional performance.

Authors:  Li Wan; Bruce H Friedman; Nash N Boutros; Helen J Crawford
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 2.997

7.  Magnetic sources of the M50 response are localized to frontal cortex.

Authors:  E Garcia-Rill; K Moran; J Garcia; W M Findley; K Walton; B Strotman; R R Llinas
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  Improvement in arousal, visual neglect, and perception of stimulus intensity following cold pressor stimulation.

Authors:  Adam J Woods; Mark Mennemeier; Edgar Garcia-Rill; Tiffany Huitt; Kenneth C Chelette; Gary McCullough; Tiffany Munn; Ginger Brown; Thomas S Kiser
Journal:  Neurocase       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 0.881

9.  Detecting violations of sensory expectancies following cerebellar degeneration: a mismatch negativity study.

Authors:  Torgeir Moberget; Christina M Karns; Leon Y Deouell; Magnus Lindgren; Robert T Knight; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Long-term deficits of preterm birth: evidence for arousal and attentional disturbances.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.