A comparison of the different interpair intervals in the conditioning–testing P50 paradigms

Dolu, Nazan; Süer, Cem; Özesmi, Çiğdem

doi:10.1016/s0167-8760(01)00134-9

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean ratio values of all components were nearly identical between the classic sensory gating protocol and our simple 'oddball' modified protocol with a short interstimulus interval. This is in line with Dolu et al [13] , reporting full recovery of the P50 response at short intervals (see 'Introduction'), and with Clunas and Ward [31] for the N100 response. In a study applying paired-stimuli, Clunas and Ward [31] found even lower second N100 amplitudes for short compared to long interpair intervals (1, 3, or 5 vs. 7 s intrapair interval), suggesting a full recovery of the N100 at short intervals comparable to the results of our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…If no first amplitude was detectable, this subject was excluded from further analysis (P50: 3 subjects; N100: 1 subject; P200 no subjects). If no second amplitude was detectable, this was interpreted as maximum suppression and the amplitude was set to zero [11,13] (ISI8: P50 responses, 1; N40P50 responses, 2; N100 responses, 1; P200 responses, 1; ISI2: P50 responses, 3; N40P50 responses, 1; N100 responses, 2; P200 responses, 0). One of the subjects had to be excluded for technical reasons.…”

Section: Parametrization and Peak Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dolu et al [13] investigated P50 sensory gating with the paired-stimulus design using the long interstimulus interval of 8 s while applying different intrapair intervals. As expected, they found a marked gating phenomenon when the intrapair interval was 0.5 s (P50 sensory gating ratio, 37%), but no gating phenomenon was found at longer intrapair intervals of 0.75 s and 1 s (P50 sensory gating ratios, 114 and 93%, respectively).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Midlatency Auditory Sensory Gating at Short and Long Interstimulus Intervals

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Suppression of P50, N100 and P200 auditory evoked responses in a dual-click procedure is considered an index for the multistage sensory gating process. Whereas most studies use a protocol with long interstimulus intervals of 8–12 s between the stimuli pairs, there is also evidence that sensory gating occurs at much lower intervals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether a simple modified dual-click protocol with short interstimulus intervals elicts similar sensory gating ratios compared to the classic protocol. Methods: P50, N100 and P200 amplitudes and sensory gating ratios were measured in 23 healthy subjects with 2 different dual-click protocols in 1 session: (1) a simple oddball modified with short interstimulus intervals of about 2.8 s (ISI2), and (2), the classic used with long intervals of about 8 s (ISI8). Results: The amplitudes of the P50, N100 and P200 responses were mostly comparable and correlated between both protocols. Mean sensory gating ratios (ISI8/ISI2) were as follows: P50, 35.4/36.4%; N40P50, 36.1/39.9%; N100, 44.4/48.4%; P200, 46.8/43.3%; N100P200, 45.3/41.8%; all differences between protocols, p > 0.1. P50 ratio scores did not show a sufficient correlation between protocols [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) P50, 0.13; N40P50, 0.0] compared to N100 (ICC, 0.79), P200 (ICC, 0.6) and N100P200 (ICC, 0.61). Conclusion: Our results contradict the assumption that long interstimulus intervals of about 8 s are absolutely necessary to elicit a marked sensory gating phenomenon for P50, N100 and P200 auditory responses (at least when using a protocol with a simple attention task). However, because only healthy subjects were investigated, no prediction can be made for psychiatric patients, in whom neuronal processing may be different.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Parametrization and Peak Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Midlatency Auditory Sensory Gating at Short and Long Interstimulus Intervals

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This EP component is also known as the P1 componentabout 500 ms) are presented, the second stimulus usually elicits a much smaller amplitude response for the P50 (Dolu et al, 2001;Waldo and Freedman, 1986). The current leading psychological interpretation of the P50 amplitude decrement in the normal population is that a continuous stream of incoming auditory information is gated or screened -that is, redundant or potentially irrelevant information is filtered out -in order to prevent overloading the limited capacities of higher-order stages of auditory information processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generators of the intracranial P50 response in auditory sensory gating

Korzyukov

Pflieger

Wagner³

et al. 2007

NeuroImage

163

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clarification of the cortical mechanisms underlying auditory sensory gating may advance our understanding of brain dysfunctions associated with schizophrenia. To this end, data from 9 epilepsy patients who participated in an auditory paired-click paradigm during pre-surgical evaluation and had grids of electrodes covering temporal and frontal lobe were analyzed. A distributed source localization approach was applied to intracranial P50 response and Gating Difference Wave obtained by subtracting the response to second stimuli from the response to first stimuli.Source reconstruction of the P50 showed that the main generators of the response were localized at the temporal lobes. The analysis also suggested that the maximum neuronal activity contributing to the amplitude reduction at the P50 time range (phenomenon of auditory sensory gating) is localized at the frontal lobe.Present findings suggest that while the temporal lobe is the main generator of the P50 component, the frontal lobe seems to be a substantial contributor to the process of sensory gating as observed from scalp recordings.

show abstract

“…Dolu et al (2001) investigated P50 sensory gating with the paired stimulus design using the long inter-pair interval of 8 s while applying different inter-stimulus intervals. As expected they found a marked gating phenomenon when the inter-stimulus interval was 0.5 s (P50 sensory gating ratios 37%), but no gating phenomenon was found at interstimulus intervals of 0.75 s and 1 s (P50 sensory gating ratios 114% and 93%, respectively).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest reliability of P50, N100 and P200 auditory sensory gating in healthy subjects

Rentzsch

Jockers-Scherübl

Boutros

et al. 2008

International Journal of Psychophysiology

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison of the different interpair intervals in the conditioning–testing P50 paradigms

Cited by 31 publications

References 11 publications

Comparison of Midlatency Auditory Sensory Gating at Short and Long Interstimulus Intervals

Comparison of Midlatency Auditory Sensory Gating at Short and Long Interstimulus Intervals

Generators of the intracranial P50 response in auditory sensory gating

Test–retest reliability of P50, N100 and P200 auditory sensory gating in healthy subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About