| Literature DB >> 32583977 |
Mayu Akaiwa1, Koki Iwata1, Hidekazu Saito2, Takeshi Sasaki3, Kazuhiro Sugawara3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Repetitive practice of sensorimotor tasks is widely used for neurorehabilitation; however, it is unknown how practice alters sensory processing (e.g., recognition, discrimination, and attentional allocation) and associated cognitive processing, such as decision-making. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether long-latency somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) reflecting sensory processing, attention, and decision-making are altered by sensorimotor learning.Entities:
Keywords: N140; N250; P300; reaction time task; somatosensory evoked potentials
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32583977 PMCID: PMC7428476 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Impact factor: 2.708
FIGURE 1Mean reaction times (RTs) before (Pre) and after (Post) three days of practice (* p = .0003)
FIGURE 2Averaged learning curve of RT in all participants
FIGURE 3Typical examples of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in a sensorimotor response task. The gray and black lines represent SEPs recorded before practice (Pre) and after three days of practice (Post), respectively
Amplitude and latency of somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) components in pre‐ and postpractice for 3 days and the changes subtracted amplitude or latency of each SEP component in pre‐practice from the SEP component in postpractice
| Electrode | Component | Amplitude (µV) | Latency (ms) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Change | Pre | Post | Change | ||
| F3 | P100 | 7.6 (3.7) | 8.1 (3.8) | 0.5 (3.1) | 97.4 (15.5) | 99.4 (14.2) | 2.0 (7.6) |
| N140 | 4.1 (3.2) | 4.1 (3.2) | 0.0 (0.8) | 137.3 (19.4) | 137.1 (16.2) | −0.1 (10.4) | |
| N250 | 6.1 (2.1) | 6.7 (3.7) | 0.6 (3.6) | 242.7 (28.6) | 246.1 (20.3) | 3.4 (18.7) | |
| P300 | 6.0 (4.1) | 6.3 (5.6) | 0.3 (6.2) | 334.0 (44.7) | 309.7 (47.8) | −24.4 (43.1) | |
| Cz | P100 | 9.7 (3.4) | 9.7 (3.9) | 0.0 (2.9) | 86.1 (13.6) | 91.1 (13.39 | 5.0 (11.1) |
| N140 | 5.9 (3.1) | 6.7 (2.4) | 0.8 (2.7) | 135.3 (18.4) | 135.3 (10.5) | 0.0 (17.0) | |
| N250 | 5.5 (3.3) | 6.6 (4.6) | 1.2 (4.5) | 238.4 (36.7) | 239.1 (28.7) | 0.7 (20.6) | |
| P300 | 5.0 (3.2) | 5.4 (2.2) | 0.4 (3.1) | 315.0 (50.7) | 309.9 (46.3) | −5.1 (23.6) | |
| C3' | P100 | 7.3 (3.1) | 6.9 (4.6) | −0.4 (3.0) | 88.0 (8.4) | 88.4 (10.4) | 0.4 (10.3) |
| N140 | 6.0 (3.5) | 6.9 (2.8) | 0.9 (1.9) | 138.4 (21.5) | 135.3 (13.5) | −3.1 (21.8) | |
| N250 | 3.8 (4.0) | 4.5 (3.7) | 0.7 (2.6) | 229.1 (20.6) | 226.1 (21.8) | −3.0 (12.8) | |
| P300 | 5.3 (3.1) | 5.6 (3.0) | 0.3 (3.3) | 281.7 (34.5) | 282.0 (36.6) | 0.2 (33.3) | |
Data are expressed as means (standard deviations).
FIGURE 4Correlations between ΔRT and ΔN140lat at (a) F3, (b) Cz, and (c) C3’
FIGURE 5Correlations between ΔRT and ΔN250lat at F3
FIGURE 6Correlations between ΔRT and ΔN300amp at C3′