Comparison of sensory gating to mismatch negativity and self‐reported perceptual phenomena in healthy adults

Abstract

To better understand the possible functional significance of electrophysiological sensory gating measures, response suppression of midlatency auditory event related potential (ERP) components was compared to the mismatch negativity (MMN) and to self-rated indices of stimulus filtering and passive attention-switching phenomena in an age-restricted sample of healthy adults. P1 sensory gating, measured during a paired-click paradigm, was correlated with MMN amplitude, measured during an acoustic oddball paradigm (intensity deviation). Also, individuals that exhibited less robust P1 suppression endorsed higher rates of "perceptual modulation" difficulties, whereas component N1 suppression was more closely related to "over-inclusion" of irrelevant sounds into the focus of attention. These findings suggest that the ERP components investigated are not redundant, but correspond to distinct-possibly related-pre-attentive processing systems.

Gamma and beta neural activity evoked during a sensory gating paradigm: Effects of auditory, somatosensory and cross-modal stimulation

“…Although this band-limited (12-20 Hz) oscillation clearly cannot account for the full deflection of the broadband N1 waveform (1-75 Hz), it does make a contribution to N1 amplitude (although Figure 7 demonstrates this empirically, it′s relatively trivial from a mathematical standpoint since the frequency range 12-20 Hz lies within the range 1-75 Hz). This implies that at least part of component N1′s well-documented modulation by ISI (Alcaini et al, 1994;Boutros and Belger, 1999;Davis et al, 1966;Kisley et al, 2004) results from the beta band′s sensitivity to this variable -as support for this, ISI-modulation for component N1 was significantly correlated to ISI-modulation for the beta band in the present study. Again, the notion that beta activity is distributed across multiple cortical regions (Roelfsema et al, 1997;von Stein et al, 1999) agrees well with the known multi-component nature of N1.…”

“…Following the sensory gating literature, short-ISI was 0.5 s, and long-ISI was 9 s (e.g., see Kisley et al, 2004). In the present conceptualization, each stimulus is thus defined by the ISI that precedes it.…”

“…For this paradigm, "cross-modal" pairings were considered to occur when a short-ISI stimulus followed a stimulus of another modality (e.g., an auditory stimulus followed a somatosensory stimulus, or vice-versa). To eliminate the potential influence of the participants′ acclimatization to the recording condition, the first 5 min of recording were excluded from analysis for all studies (Kisley et al, 2004).…”

“…This procedure has been described in detail elsewhere (Kisley et al, 2004). Briefly, the average waveforms were bandpass filtered between 10 and 75 Hz to isolate component P1, or between 1 and 30 Hz to isolate component N1.…”

“…Neural processing of ISI has commonly been investigated with a "sensory gating" paradigm (Adler et al, 1998;Boutros and Belger, 1999;Braff and Geyer, 1990;Kisley et al, 2004). The paradigm involves the presentation of an unchanging sensory stimulus, but at varied intervals between presentations (e.g., 0.5 and 9 s).…”