Literature DB >> 34748108

Mechanisms of Long-Latency Paired Pulse Suppression: MEG Study.

Nobuyuki Takeuchi1,2, Kohei Fujita3, Tomoya Taniguchi4, Tomoaki Kinukawa4, Shunsuke Sugiyama5, Kousuke Kanemoto3, Makoto Nishihara3,6, Koji Inui7.   

Abstract

Paired pulse suppression is an electrophysiological method used to evaluate sensory suppression and often applied to patients with psychiatric disorders. However, it remains unclear whether the suppression comes from specific inhibitory mechanisms, refractoriness, or fatigue. In the present study, to investigate mechanisms of suppression induced by an auditory paired pulse paradigm in 19 healthy subjects, magnetoencephalography was employed. The control stimulus was a train of 25-ms pure tones of 65 dB SPL for 2500 ms. In order to evoke a test response, the sound pressure of two consecutive tones at 2200 ms in the control sound was increased to 80 dB (Test stimulus). Similar sound pressure changes were also inserted at 1000 (CS2) and 1600 (CS1) ms as conditioning stimuli. Four stimulus conditions were used; (1) Test alone, (2) Test + CS1, (3) Test + CS1 + CS2, and (4) Test + CS2, with the four sound stimuli randomly presented and cortical responses averaged at least 100 times for each condition. The baseline-to-peak and peak-to-peak amplitudes of the P50m, N100m, and P200m components of the test response were compared among the four conditions. In addition, the response to CS1 was compared between conditions (2) and (3). The results showed significant test response suppression by CS1. While the response to CS1 was significantly suppressed when CS2 was present, it did not affect suppression of the test response by CS1. It was thus suggested that the amplitude of the response to a conditioning stimulus is not a factor to determine the inhibitory effects of the test response, indicating that suppression is due to an external influence on the excitatory pathway.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory evoked potential (AEP); Change-related response; Sensory gating

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34748108     DOI: 10.1007/s10548-021-00878-6

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


  41 in total

1.  Paired-pulse behavior of visually evoked potentials recorded in human visual cortex using patterned paired-pulse stimulation.

Authors:  Oliver Höffken; Torsten Grehl; Hubert R Dinse; Martin Tegenthoff; Michael Bach
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  GABAB antagonists diminish the inhibitory gating of auditory response in the rat hippocampus.

Authors:  K M Hershman; R Freedman; P C Bickford
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  1995-05-05       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Decrement of the N1 auditory event-related potential with stimulus repetition: habituation vs. refractoriness.

Authors:  T W Budd; R J Barry; E Gordon; C Rennie; P T Michie
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.997

4.  Clarifying the functional process represented by P50 suppression.

Authors:  Anna Dalecki; Stuart J Johnstone; Rodney J Croft
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.997

5.  Auditory sensory gating in patients with bipolar disorders: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chia-Hsiung Cheng; Pei-Ying S Chan; Chia-Yih Liu; Shih-Chieh Hsu
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 4.839

6.  Short-term habituation of the auditory evoked response in man.

Authors:  H Fruhstorfer; P Soveri; T Järvilehto
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1970-02

7.  Interstimulus interval dependence of the auditory vertex response and its magnetic counterpart: implications for their neural generation.

Authors:  R Hari; K Kaila; T Katila; T Tuomisto; T Varpula
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1982-11

8.  The loudness dependency of the auditory evoked N1/P2-component as a predictor of the acute SSRI response in depression.

Authors:  J Gallinat; R Bottlender; G Juckel; A Munke-Puchner; G Stotz; H J Kuss; P Mavrogiorgou; U Hegerl
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  Neurophysiological assessment of sensory gating in psychiatric inpatients: comparison between schizophrenia and other diagnoses.

Authors:  N Baker; L E Adler; R D Franks; M Waldo; S Berry; H Nagamoto; A Muckle; R Freedman
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 13.382

10.  Neurophysiological evidence for a defect in neuronal mechanisms involved in sensory gating in schizophrenia.

Authors:  L E Adler; E Pachtman; R D Franks; M Pecevich; M C Waldo; R Freedman
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 13.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.