Literature DB >> 7515790

Dynamics of event-related potentials to trains of light and dark flashes: responses to missing and extra stimuli in elasmobranch fish.

S Karamürsel1, T H Bullock.   

Abstract

To characterize the dependencies of event-related potentials (ERPs) in lower vertebrates and brain levels upon recent history and sequences of stimuli, trains of flashes were delivered at various frequencies to unanesthetized rays while recording in optic tectum and telencephalon. ERPs to repetitive stimuli cannot be understood in terms of simple refractoriness and recovery. Processes must be invoked such as simultaneous excitation and suppression, facilitation and its opposite, rebound and induced rhythms, each with development and decay times and non-linearities. Some of these processes are uncovered by omitting a stimulus from a train. Omitted stimulus potentials (OSPs) act as though the brain expects a stimulus within 5-7 msec of the interstimulus interval (ISI) of the train. Very few ISIs suffice. The effect upon visual evoked potential (VEP) form and duration of the number of stimuli in short trains, before the steady state response (SSR) is established, is complex. Alternation of the amplitude of successive VEPs (1 large every 2 VEPs, 1 in 3, 1 in 4) is one indication of complexities in the SSR. OSPs also alternate. A single extra stimulus interpolated into a regular train causes distinct effects according to its position. Sharp discontinuities in these effects appear with < 5 msec shifts. Total power of the SSR decreases with stimulation frequency but there is a large peak of increased power at 7 Hz and another at 12 Hz. Induced rhythms are a labile, late phase of OSPs as well as of rested VEPs and of the off response to a long light pulse. Jittered ISI experiments show that the apparent expectation of the OSP is little affected and that the intervals in the last few hundred milliseconds are most influential. The OSP studied here (ISI < 0.5 s) is quite different from that so far studied in human subjects (ISI > 1 sec). We predict further similarities when each taxon is tested in the other ISI range. A major category of response characteristics, besides sensitivity, receptive fields and recovery times, is dependence upon recent history of iterative events, including intervals, delays omissions and perhaps multiple facilitating and forgetting time constants. The variables examined parametrically in this study are only some of those available. Such dynamical characteristics are important neglected properties of afferent systems at each level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7515790     DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(94)90138-4

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


  7 in total

1.  Detection and prediction of periodic patterns by the retina.

Authors:  Greg Schwartz; Rob Harris; David Shrom; Michael J Berry
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2007-04-22       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  An oscillatory circuit underlying the detection of disruptions in temporally-periodic patterns.

Authors:  Juan Gao; Greg Schwartz; Michael J Berry; Philip Holmes
Journal:  Network       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.273

3.  Multiple Timescales Account for Adaptive Responses across Sensory Cortices.

Authors:  Kenneth W Latimer; Dylan Barbera; Michael Sokoletsky; Bshara Awwad; Yonatan Katz; Israel Nelken; Ilan Lampl; Adriene L Fairhall; Nicholas J Priebe
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  A generic deviance detection principle for cortical On/Off responses, omission response, and mismatch negativity.

Authors:  Vincent S C Chien; Burkhard Maess; Thomas R Knösche
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.086

5.  Persistence of EEG Alpha Entrainment Depends on Stimulus Phase at Offset.

Authors:  Mónica Otero; Pavel Prado-Gutiérrez; Alejandro Weinstein; María-José Escobar; Wael El-Deredy
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 6.  Neural Substrates and Models of Omission Responses and Predictive Processes.

Authors:  Alessandro Braga; Marc Schönwiesner
Journal:  Front Neural Circuits       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.492

7.  Two different mechanisms for the detection of stimulus omission.

Authors:  Shogo Ohmae; Masaki Tanaka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.