2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.08.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beyond the N1: A review of late somatosensory evoked responses in human infants

Abstract: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) have been used for decades to study the development of somatosensory processing in human infants. Research on infant SEPs has focused on the initial cortical component (N1) and its clinical utility for predicting neurological outcome in at-risk infants. However, recent studies suggest that examining the later components in the infant somatosensory evoked response will greatly advance our understanding of somatosensory processing in infancy. The purpose of this review is t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The interstimulus interval was large, variable, and self-paced by the experimenter (8–15 s) as shorter intervals could attenuate long latency SEPs (Desmedt and Manil 1970; Gibson et al 1992; Nevalainen et al 2015). In case the infant moved, the tap was delayed for several seconds to avoid potential modulation of the somatosensory response by the movement (Saby et al 2016) and to allow movement artifacts to resolve. The sequence in which the limbs were stimulated varied across subjects.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The interstimulus interval was large, variable, and self-paced by the experimenter (8–15 s) as shorter intervals could attenuate long latency SEPs (Desmedt and Manil 1970; Gibson et al 1992; Nevalainen et al 2015). In case the infant moved, the tap was delayed for several seconds to avoid potential modulation of the somatosensory response by the movement (Saby et al 2016) and to allow movement artifacts to resolve. The sequence in which the limbs were stimulated varied across subjects.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Much less is known about longer-latency potentials, which are considered to reflect higher-order processing levels further along the hierarchical tree (Nevalainen et al 2014; Saby et al 2016). At full-term, stimulation of the hands and feet elicits a second negative deflection (N2) at 150 ms following the early N1 and/or P1, and, less consistently reported, a second positive peak (P2) at 240 ms and a third negative peak (N3) at 450 ms (hands: Desmedt and Manil 1970; Hrbek et al 1973; Laget et al 1976; Karniski et al 1992; Taylor et al 1996; Pihko et al 2004; Nevalainen et al 2015; Maitre et al 2017; Donadio et al 2018); feet: (Cindro et al, 1985; Minami et al 1996; Pike et al 1997; Slater et al 2010; Fabrizi et al 2011; Donadio et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inter-stimulus interval was large, variable, and self-paced by the experimenter (5–15 s), as shorter intervals can attenuate somatosensory evoked potentials [ 27 29 ]. If the infant moved, the tap was delayed for several seconds to avoid potential modulation of the somatosensory response by motion [ 30 ] and to allow movement artefacts to resolve. The sequence in which the body areas were stimulated varied across subjects.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research employing infant electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) has begun to shed light on how the developing human brain responds to touch (for reviews see, Nevalainen, Lauronen, & Pihko, 2014;Saby, Meltzoff, & Marshall, 2016). To date, most studies in this area have focused on tactile stimulation of the hand.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%