Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP) am Menschen bei periodischen und zufallsverteilten Reizintervallen

Pantew, Ch.; Khachidze, O. A.; Gallé, E. Lage; Gobsch, Herbert; Sasama, Rainer

doi:10.1007/bf00456292

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roeber, Berti, and Schröger (2003) used random SOIs in a study designed to explore whether performance and electrophysiological measures in an auditory distraction paradigm depend on the timing of stimulus occurrence, but focus on the mismatch negativity. Several studies, however, have examined whether a random, or irregular, design evokes a larger peak amplitude of the M100 or N100 than a block design, but-with one claimed exception (Keidel & Spreng, 1965)-found no difference (Nelson et al, 1969;Pantev, Khachidze, Galle, Gobsch, & Sasama, 1974; see also Roeber et al, 2003) or only a subtle difference in favor of random or irregular stimulation (Rothman, Davis, & Hay, 1970). However, in these studies, the individual responses to the different SOIs in the random or irregular design were not averaged separately according to SOIs, as done here, but instead were averaged across all SOIs, and thus the effects of SOI likely average out.…”

Section: Stimulation-history Effects On the M100mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulation‐history effects on the M100 revealed by its differential dependence on the stimulus onset interval

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amplitudes of the most prominent component of auditory evoked magnetic fields and electrical potentials, the M100 and N100, recorded from the human scalp depend on the duration of the stimulus onset interval (SOI). Here, we show, using magnetoencephalography, that the SOI dependence of the M100 amplitude strongly depends upon whether stimuli with different SOIs are presented in a conventional block design or in a random manner. This differential dependence reveals that the M100 is affected not only by the stimulus evoking it and by its predecessor, but by a longer-term history of stimulation. We provide a parsimonious model that accounts for our findings with both designs in a quantitative manner. It assumes a transient, temporally asymmetric reduction in the excitability of a fraction of potentially excitable neurons. A rather stereotyped response function may therefore underlie the stimulation-history effects in the human auditory cortex.

show abstract

Section: Stimulation-history Effects On the M100mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulation‐history effects on the M100 revealed by its differential dependence on the stimulus onset interval

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP) im Kindesalter bei periodischen und zufallsverteilten Reizintervallen

Pantew

Sasama

Pantew

1976

Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The differences between amplitudes and latencies of acoustically evoked potentials (AEP) in children, aged between 3 and 7 years, were tested using random distributed stimuli with mean interstimulus intervals (ISI) of 1.45 sec, 2.1 sec, and 4.1 sec and periodic stimuli with the same ISI. We applied three different intensities, 30, 50, and 70 dB SPL and a frequency of 1000 c/s. We determined the peak to peak amplitudes P2N2 and N2P3 and the latencies of P2, N2, and P3 for our calculation because of the typical AEP pattern in children. There were no significant differences between the mean amplitudes and mean latencies, using an error probability of 1% comparing the AEP determined by the two different ways of stimulation. The increase of the ISI from 1.45 to 4.1 sec didn't yield to a significant improvement of the AEP in both stimulation patterns. In the tested group of children the used stimulation pattern, as we already stated in adults, is without greater importance.

show abstract

ERA-stimulation with free-programable frequency and intensity Sequence?A method to reduce the examination time

Pantew

Kevanishvili

Gallé

et al. 1975

Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new method for ERA-stimulation with free-programable sequence of intensity and frequency will described. We developed to realize this method a Free-Programable ERA-Stimulator, FPERAS/74. The expectation has been confirmed that this way of stimulation which includes a regular change of frequency and intensity of the auditory stimuli decreases effective the development of habituation in its amount and velocity. In our experiment (K- and P-experiment) it will be clarified the efficiency of this method both with regard to the time-saving during the recordings of the AEP and its quality comparee with the conventionally determined AEP. It can be stated a triple shortening of the examination time with a simultaneous improvement of the quality and the reproductibility of the AEP.

show abstract

Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP) am Menschen bei periodischen und zufallsverteilten Reizintervallen

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Stimulation‐history effects on the M100 revealed by its differential dependence on the stimulus onset interval

Stimulation‐history effects on the M100 revealed by its differential dependence on the stimulus onset interval

Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP) im Kindesalter bei periodischen und zufallsverteilten Reizintervallen

ERA-stimulation with free-programable frequency and intensity Sequence?A method to reduce the examination time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About