2020
DOI: 10.1111/ejn.14964
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do visual and auditory stimulus‐specific response modulation reflect different mechanisms of neocortical plasticity?

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
28
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
6
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, we demonstrated modulation of VEP components C1 and N1 following HFS. These findings add to previous studies demonstrating that high-frequency (Teyler et al, 2005;Spriggs et al, 2017;Rygvold et al, 2020) and prolonged (Normann et al, 2007;Valstad et al, 2020) sensory stimulation modulate several VEP component amplitudes. This modulation effect has been repeatedly demonstrated for components C1, P1, N1b, and N1, of which modulation of the N1/N1b complex is the most consistent finding (Teyler et al, 2005;Normann et al, 2007;Elvsåshagen et al, 2012;Spriggs et al, 2017;Zak et al, 2018;Valstad et al, 2020).…”
Section: Corroboration Of the Srm Paradigmsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the present study, we demonstrated modulation of VEP components C1 and N1 following HFS. These findings add to previous studies demonstrating that high-frequency (Teyler et al, 2005;Spriggs et al, 2017;Rygvold et al, 2020) and prolonged (Normann et al, 2007;Valstad et al, 2020) sensory stimulation modulate several VEP component amplitudes. This modulation effect has been repeatedly demonstrated for components C1, P1, N1b, and N1, of which modulation of the N1/N1b complex is the most consistent finding (Teyler et al, 2005;Normann et al, 2007;Elvsåshagen et al, 2012;Spriggs et al, 2017;Zak et al, 2018;Valstad et al, 2020).…”
Section: Corroboration Of the Srm Paradigmsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Due to methodological limitations, the transition to human models explaining LTP have proven difficult. However, initiated by Teyler et al (2005), non-invasive EEG-derived methods have been developed to study LTP-like phenomena in humans, targeting changes in sensory evoked potential amplitudes following high-frequency sensory stimulation (e.g., Teyler et al, 2005;Spriggs et al, 2017;Rygvold et al, 2020) or prolonged sensory stimulation (e.g., Normann et al, 2007;Valstad et al, 2020). The experimental procedure involving the modulation of sensory evoked potentials which is regarded as a valid assay of LTP-like plasticity phenomena, is commonly referred to as the stimulus-selective response modulation (SRM) paradigm (Rygvold et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, cetaceans could compensate their lack of cortical specialization by an increase in cortical surface (Morgane et al 1990), and thereby explaining the myeloarchitectonic increase of L6, known to be the cortico-cortical connection site. Wiring strategies in developing vision and hearing follow different routes and targets (Rygvold et al 2021;Sitko and Goodrich 2021) and may also rely on specific variation in the cortical column based on the presence and distribution of immature neurons in L2 and potential plasticity (La Rosa et al 2020).…”
Section: Lateralitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The initial study has reported the sustained increase of fronto‐central N1 component in response to 1000‐Hz tone after its presentation with a frequency of 13 Hz for 2 min (Clapp et al, 2005). The same experimental design has been used in three more studies (Lei et al, 2017; Rygvold et al, 2021; Teo et al, 2014), although with rather inconsistent results as the N1 increase has been replicated only in one study but at the different posterior region (Lei et al, 2017), while other studies have found a significant increase of N1‐P2 peak‐to‐peak or P2 amplitude (Rygvold et al, 2021; Teo et al, 2014). Thus, the ERP effects of auditory tetanization need additional examination.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, we aimed to probe if the tetanization effects can be observed in less challenging experimental conditions that are more appropriate, for example, for clinical groups or children. For this purpose, the experimental block that fully reproduced the original Clapp's design where participants have to fixate on the cross in the middle of the screen as used in Clapp et al (2005), Teo et al (2014), and Rygvold et al (2021) was supplemented by sequences where participants watched muted movies while listening to sounds. We chose not to adopt a paradigm where participants close their eyes and listen to stimuli as used by Lei and colleagues (Lei et al, 2017), as this is prone to induction of drowsiness (Oken et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%