The cumulative effects of different stimulus repitition rates on the auditory evoked response in man

Butler, Robert A.

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(73)90189-2

Cited by 34 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tecchio et al (2000) claimed that motor adjustments to step changes in a metronome sequence are guided by the auditory system detecting metronome period change, as evidenced by an amplitude modulation of the magnetoencephalographic (MEG) analogue of the N1. In our data, compelling evidence for rejecting the AEP modulation being due to period change comes from Experiment 3 with passive auditory stimulation, where we found that IOI increments yield higher N1-P2 amplitudes than IOI decrements, in agreement with existing evidence from research on auditory refractoriness effects on the N1 (e.g., Davis et al, 1966;Butler, 1973). During tapping, however, the same IOI changes were accompanied by amplitude modulations in the N1-P2 latency range of opposite direction (see Fig.…”

Section: Aeps and Auditory-somatosensory Interactionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The direction of the difference entirely fits the results from previous work concerning stimulus rate effects on the amplitude of the auditory N1 component. In part of that work, namely, the N1 is measured as N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude (e.g., Davis et al, 1966;Butler, 1973). Indeed, evaluated in terms of N1-P2 amplitude, the difference between Ϫ50 and ϩ50 ms shift conditions is more robust (F(1,9) ϭ 19.38, P ϭ 0.002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a sensorimotor synchronization task requiring subjects to tap in synchrony with an auditory stimulus, occasional perturbations (i.e., interval changes) in an otherwise isochronous sequence of auditory metronome stimuli are known to be compensated remarkably swift and with surprising precision, even when they are too small to be consciously perceived. To investigate the neural substrate and the informational basis of error correction in sensorimotor synchronization, we recorded movement-related, auditory-evoked, and error-related EEG potentials. Experiment 1 confirmed rapid adjustment to stimulus phase shifts, with faster correction of large (50 ms) compared to small (15 ms) shifts. In addition to being corrected faster, there was overcorrection of the 50 ms shifts, attributed to engagement of period correction mechanisms. For ϩ50 ms shifts, a neural correlate of period correction was identified in the form of medial frontal cortex activation, preceded by an error-related brain potential (ERN). Auditory-evoked potential (AEP) amplitudes were sensitive to stimulus phase shifts of both large and small magnitude. Further experiments with a smaller magnitude 10 ms phase shift (Experiment 2) and passive auditory stimulation (Experiment 3) provided evidence that the modulation of AEP amplitudes is not due to metronome interval changes, but may represent auditory-somatosensory activation. Together, behavioral and neurophysiological data support the hypothesis that phase correction is a largely automatic process, not dependent on conscious perception of changes in timing. By contrast, perceivable phase shifts may invoke timekeeper adjustments accompanied by medial frontal cortex activity.

show abstract

Section: Aeps and Auditory-somatosensory Interactionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, stimulus rate affects P50 amplitudes. Amplitudes decrease as stimulus rate increases, a process known as a 'refractory effect' (Butler, 1973;Davis et al, 1966;Naatanen and Picton, 1987;Nelson and Lassman, 1973;Roth et al, 1976). The amplitude differences between MCI and controls might be due to differences in refractory effects in the two groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory brain-stem, middle- and long-latency evoked potentials in mild cognitive impairment

Irimajiri

Golob

Starr

2005

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a selective episodic memory deficit in the elderly with a high risk of Alzheimer's disease. The amplitudes of a long-latency auditory evoked potential (P50) are larger in MCI compared to age-matched controls. We tested whether increased P50 amplitudes in MCI were accompanied by changes of middle-latency potentials occurring around 50 ms and/or auditory brainstem potentials. Methods: Auditory evoked potentials were recorded from age-matched controls (nZ16) and MCI (nZ17) in a passive listening paradigm at two stimulus presentation rates (2/s, 1/1.5 s). A subset of subjects also received stimuli at a rate of 1/3 s. Results: Relative to controls, MCI subjects had larger long-latency P50 amplitudes at all stimulus rates. Significant group differences in N100 amplitude were dependent on stimulus rate. Amplitudes of the middle-latency components (Pa, Nb, P1 peaking at approximately 30, 40, and 50 ms, respectively) did not differ between groups, but a slow wave between 30 and 49 ms on which the middle-latency components arose was significantly increased in MCI. ABR Wave V latency and amplitude did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: The increase of long-latency P50 amplitudes in MCI reflects changes of a middle-latency slow wave, but not of transient middle-latency components. There was no evidence of group difference at the brain-stem level. Significance: Increased slow wave occurring as early as 50 ms may reflect neurophysiological consequences of neuropathology in MCI.

show abstract

“…It has been well documented (Davis et al 1966;Nelson & Lassman, 1968, 1973, 1977Butler, 1973;Budd et al 1998) that increasing the interstimulus interval (ISI) between adjacent sounds in a stimulus train will result in increased amplitudes of the exogenous components of the late auditory evoked potential (e.g., N1, P2). The most common laboratory method employed to derive the MMN involves an oddball paradigm employing a train of repetitive, homogeneous tones (i.e., "standards"), which are interspersed with tones that differ acoustically (i.e., "deviants") from the standards.…”

Section: Mmn and Differential Waveform 3 An Evaluation Of The Mismatcmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of the mismatch negativity and a differential waveform response

Elangovan

Cranford

Walker

et al. 2005

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cumulative effects of different stimulus repitition rates on the auditory evoked response in man

Cited by 34 publications

References 9 publications

Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization

Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization

Auditory brain-stem, middle- and long-latency evoked potentials in mild cognitive impairment

A Comparison of the mismatch negativity and a differential waveform response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About