Comparison between Simultaneously Recorded Auditory-Evoked Magnetic Fields and Potentials Elicited by Ipsilateral, Contralateral and Binaural Tone Burst Stimulation

Pantev, C.; Lütkenhöner, Bernd; Hoke, M.; Lehnertz, Klaus

doi:10.3109/00206098609078369

Cited by 179 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous MEG and EEG studies have revealed that activation in the auditory cortices of both hemispheres is stronger for contralateral auditory stimulation [11,[32][33][34][35]37,51,52]. These findings are further corroborated by results obtained in animal models [14,18].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…There is fairly good agreement that both hemispheres respond more vigorously to contralaterally presented auditory stimuli as shown by studies using monaural [34,35,37,51,52] and spatial stimulation using 3D audio [11,32,33]. However, for stimuli presented laterally via ITD, some studies have reported contralaterally larger responses [28], while others have found no significant differences between contra-and ipsilateral stimulation [51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial processing in human auditory cortex: The effects of 3D, ITD, and ILD stimulation techniques

Palomäki

Tiitinen

Mäkinen

et al. 2005

Cognitive Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here, the perception of auditory spatial information as indexed by behavioral measures is linked to brain dynamics as reflected by the N1m response recorded with whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG). Broadband noise stimuli with realistic spatial cues corresponding to eight direction angles in the horizontal plane were constructed via custom-made, individualized binaural recordings (BAR) and generic head-related transfer functions (HRTF). For comparison purposes, stimuli with impoverished acoustical cues were created via interaural time and level differences (ITDs and ILDs) and their combinations. MEG recordings in ten subjects revealed that the amplitude and the latency of the N1m exhibits directional tuning to sound location, with the amplitude of the right-hemispheric N1m being particularly sensitive to the amount of spatial cues in the stimuli. The BAR, HRTF, and combined ITD + ILD stimuli resulted both in a larger dynamic range and in a more systematic distribution of the N1m amplitude across stimulus angle than did the ITD or ILD stimuli alone. Further, the righthemispheric source loci of the N1m responses for the BAR and HRTF stimuli were anterior to those for the ITD and ILD stimuli. In behavioral tests, we measured the ability of the subjects to localize BAR and HRTF stimuli in terms of azimuthal error and front-back confusions. We found that behavioral performance correlated positively with the amplitude of the N1m. Thus, the activity taking place already in the auditory cortex predicts behavioral sound detection of spatial stimuli, and the amount of spatial cues embedded in the signal are reflected in the activity of this brain area. D

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Spatial processing in human auditory cortex: The effects of 3D, ITD, and ILD stimulation techniques

Palomäki

Tiitinen

Mäkinen

et al. 2005

Cognitive Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The long-latency N1 response, not measurable in the present study due to the short ISI, shows yet more interaction (Pantev et al 1986;Königs and Gutschalk 2012). This would seem to suggest a hierarchy of binaural interaction (Pratt 2013).…”

Section: Binaural Additivitymentioning

confidence: 59%

“…To our knowledge, such an inverse lateralization effect has only been observed as a numerical trend for the N40 (Woods and Clayworth 1985) and in a subset of participants for the P50 , and others have found the opposite effect, i.e., N40 and P50 responses that were larger for monaural stimuli presented contralaterally (Pantev et al 1986;Mäkelä et al 1994;Yvert et al 2001). Such variable results for the later MLR components could in part be due to the presence of multiple P50 generators (Yvert et al 2001), with some showing contralateral dominance and others showing ipsilateral dominance.…”

Section: Generators and Lateralization Of The Mlrmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Although it is well established that later components of the auditory evoked response-especially the N1-can be lateralized in response to both monaural (Scherg and Von Cramon 1986;Woldorff et al 1999;Hine and Debener 2007;Königs and Gutschalk 2012) and lateralized binaural (McEvoy et al 1993;McEvoy et al 1994;Palomäki et al 2005;Johnson and Hautus 2010;Königs and Gutschalk 2012) stimuli, previous studies examining the MLR are inconclusive. While some have reported balance for monaural stimulation (Peters and Mendel 1974;Scherg and Von Cramon 1986;Kileny et al 1987;Jacobson and Grayson 1988), others have indicated varying degrees of contralateral dominance for the N19 (Woods and Clayworth 1985), the N19-P30 pair (Woods et al 1987), the P30 and P50 , or the P50-N100 pair (Pantev et al 1986), but not for binaural stimuli lateralized by interaural time differences (ITDs) (McEvoy et al 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lateralization and Binaural Interaction of Middle-Latency and Late-Brainstem Components of the Auditory Evoked Response

Dykstra

Burchard

Starzynski

et al. 2016

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used magnetoencephalography to examine lateralization and binaural interaction of the middlelatency and late-brainstem components of the auditory evoked response(the MLR and SN10, respectively). Click stimuli were presented either monaurally, or binaurally with left-or right-leading interaural time differences (ITDs). While early MLR components, including the N19 and P30, were larger for monaural stimuli presented contralaterally (by approximately 30 and 36% in the left and right hemispheres, respectively), later components, including the N40 and P50, were larger ipsilaterally. In contrast, MLRs elicited by binaural clicks with left-or right-leading ITDs did not differ. Depending on filter settings, weak binaural interaction could be observed as early as the P13 but was clearly much larger for later components, beginning at the P30, indicating some degree of binaural linearity up to early stages of cortical processing. The SN10, an obscure late-brainstem component, was observed consistently in individuals and showed linear binaural additivity. The results indicate that while the MLR is lateralized in response to monaural stimuli-and not ITDs-this lateralization reverses from primarily contralateral to primarily ipsilateral as early as 40ms post stimulus and is never as large as that seen with fMRI.

show abstract

Localization of Auditory Response Sources Using Magnetoencephalography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Papanicolaou¹,

Baumann²,

Rogers³

et al. 1990

Archives of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison between Simultaneously Recorded Auditory-Evoked Magnetic Fields and Potentials Elicited by Ipsilateral, Contralateral and Binaural Tone Burst Stimulation

Cited by 179 publications

References 12 publications

Spatial processing in human auditory cortex: The effects of 3D, ITD, and ILD stimulation techniques

Spatial processing in human auditory cortex: The effects of 3D, ITD, and ILD stimulation techniques

Lateralization and Binaural Interaction of Middle-Latency and Late-Brainstem Components of the Auditory Evoked Response

Localization of Auditory Response Sources Using Magnetoencephalography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About