Intelligence and neural transmission time: a brain stem auditory evoked potential analysis

Stelmack, Robert M.; Knott, Verner; Beauchamp, Chris M.

doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00032-6

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2016) . It has been reported previously that peak-to-baseline measures of wave I amplitude (the AP) are less reliable than peak-to-trough estimates of amplitude ( Stelmack et al., 2003 ). Therefore, measures such as the SP/AP ratio could benefit from using peak-to-trough estimates of the AP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure

Prendergast

Guest

et al. 2018

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a sub-cortical evoked potential in which a series of well-defined waves occur in the first 10 ms after the onset of an auditory stimulus. Wave V of the ABR, particularly wave V latency, has been shown to be remarkably stable over time in individual listeners. However, little attention has been paid to the reliability of wave I, which reflects auditory nerve activity. This ABR component has attracted interest recently, as wave I amplitude has been identified as a possible non-invasive measure of noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy. The current study aimed to determine whether ABR wave I amplitude has sufficient test-retest reliability to detect impaired auditory nerve function in an otherwise normal-hearing listener. Thirty normal-hearing females were tested, divided equally into low- and high-noise exposure groups. The stimulus was an 80 dB nHL click. ABR recordings were made from the ipsilateral mastoid and from the ear canal (using a tiptrode). Although there was some variability between listeners, wave I amplitude had high test-retest reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) comparable to that for wave V amplitude. There were slight gains in reliability for wave I amplitude when recording from the ear canal (ICC of 0.88) compared to the mastoid (ICC of 0.85). The summating potential (SP) and ratio of SP to wave I were also quantified and found to be much less reliable than measures of wave I and V amplitude. Finally, we found no significant differences in the amplitude of any wave components between low- and high-noise exposure groups. We conclude that, if the other sources of between-subject variability can be controlled, wave I amplitude is sufficiently reliable to accurately characterize individual differences in auditory nerve function.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure

Prendergast

Guest

et al. 2018

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But findings such as these are unreliable, are not consistently replicated (e.g., Wickett & Vernon, 1994), and occasionally are in the opposite direction as would be expected. Stelmack, Knott, and Beauchamp (2003), for example, using brainstem auditory-evoked potentials, observed slower NCVs for individuals of high ability as compared to individuals of low ability. Thus, the literature implicating NCV as a causal mechanism for individual differences in processing speed and intelligence is inconclusive at best.…”

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working Memory Capacity, Attention Control, and Fluid Intelligence

Heitz¹,

Unsworth²

2005

Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Another important theory is the neural efficiency hypothesis . It posits that more intelligent people use their brain resources more efficiently as compared to less intelligent individuals in terms of lower brain activation (Haier et al, 1988) or faster neural transmission time (Stelmack, Knott, & Beauchamp, 2003). A review of relevant findings by Neubauer and Fink (2009) further suggests that neural efficiency is restricted to tasks of low to moderate task difficulty, whereas highly able individuals may even invest more cortical resources in very difficult tasks (see also, Dunst et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… The past decades have witnessed a huge interest in uncovering the neural bases of intelligence (e.g., Stelmack, & Houlihan, 1995; Stelmack, Knott, & Beauchamp, 2003). This study investigated the influence of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on fluid intelligence performance and corresponding brain activation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on fluid intelligence: An fMRI study

Neubauer

Wammerl

Benedek

et al. 2017

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The past decades have witnessed a huge interest in uncovering the neural bases of intelligence (e.g., Stelmack, & Houlihan, 1995; Stelmack, Knott, & Beauchamp, 2003). This study investigated the influence of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on fluid intelligence performance and corresponding brain activation. Previous findings showed that left parietal theta tACS leads to a transient increase in fluid reasoning performance. In an attempt to extend and replicate these findings, we combined theta tACS with fMRI. In a double-blind sham-controlled experiment, N = 20 participants worked on two intelligence tasks (matrices and paper folding) after theta tACS was applied to the left parietal cortex. Stimulation-induced brain activation changes were recorded during task processing using fMRI. Results showed that theta tACS significantly increased fluid intelligence performance when working on difficult items in the matrices test; no effect was observed for the visuo-spatial paper folding test. Whole-brain analyses showed that left parietal brain stimulation was accompanied by lower activation in task-irrelevant brain areas. Complemental ROI analyses revealed a tendency towards lower activation in the left inferior parietal cortex. These findings corroborate the functional role of left parietal theta activity in fluid reasoning and are in line with the neural efficiency hypothesis.

show abstract

Intelligence and neural transmission time: a brain stem auditory evoked potential analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure

Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure

Working Memory Capacity, Attention Control, and Fluid Intelligence

The influence of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on fluid intelligence: An fMRI study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About