Human auditory and somatosensory event-related potentials: effects of response condition and age

Barrett, Geoff; Neshige, Ryuji; Shibasaki, Hiroshi

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(87)90210-0

Cited by 150 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern matches that described for the putative NoGo inhibition effect. Overall P300 reduction on a button-pressing task relative to the silent-count had been reported earlier on oddball tasks for analyses of the traditional midline sites (Fz, Cz, Pz) by Barrett et al (1987) and Polich (1987a), but was not observed in two other studies by Starr et al (1995Starr et al ( , 1997 nor by Polich in subsequent studies (personal communication). Salisbury et al (2001) argued that the act of button-pressing elicited motor-related potentials (MRPs) that arise in close temporal proximity with P300 and distort the `true' P300 field (see Kok, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 62%

The NoGo P300 ‘anteriorization’ effect and response inhibition

Salisbury

Griggs

Shenton

et al. 2004

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-The P300 event-related potential shows anterior P300 increases on NoGo tasks (target stimulus = withhold response) relative to Go tasks (target stimulus = commit response). This `NoGo anteriorization' has been hypothesized to reflect response inhibition. However, silent-count tasks show similar P300 anteriorization. The P300 anteriorization on silent-count tasks relative to Go tasks cannot reflect inhibition-related processes, and questions the degree to which anteriorization observed on NoGo trials can be ascribed to response inhibition. Comparison of anteriorization between the silent-count and NoGo tasks is thus essential. P300 topography on NoGo and silentcount tasks has not been previously compared.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 62%

The NoGo P300 ‘anteriorization’ effect and response inhibition

Salisbury

Griggs

Shenton

et al. 2004

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, other studies have found no changes in N2 amplitude with advancing age (Brown et al 1983;Picton et al 1984;Barrett et al 1987) and even increases at central and parietal scalp sites (Iragui et al 1993;Enoki et al 1993) which might explain N1 and N2 amplitude increment at Cz from 20 to 45 years in our scatter-plot (Figs. 3, 5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Regarding N1 latency, only Iragui et al (1993) reported significant age-related increases at Cz. The common finding has been that N1 latency remains unchanged or slightly decreases with advancing age for target stimuli at this electrode, from where it has usually been recorded (Goodin et al 1978;Brown et al 1983;Picton et al 1984;Barrett et al 1987;Anderer et al 1996;Amenedo and Díaz 1998;Tsai et al 2012). Further, Anderer et al (1996Anderer et al ( , 1998a) found a latency increase over age only for standard stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…With respect to changes of the N2 component from childhood to adulthood, most studies showed a decrease in the N2 amplitude and latency (Johnstone et al 1996;Mueller et al 2008). Regarding N1 latency, only Iragui et al (1993) reported significant age-related increases at Cz, while the common finding has been that N1 latency remains unchanged with advancing age (Barrett et al 1987). Ladish and Polich (1989) found an increase in N1 amplitude and a decrease in N1 latency with increasing age from 5 to 19 years, but other studies reported variations of N1 amplitude from childhood to adolescence (Ladish and Polich 1989;Ponton et al 2000;Č eponien_ e et al 2002.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The development of the N1 and N2 components in auditory oddball paradigms: a systematic review with narrative analysis and suggested normative values

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory event-related potentials (AERPs) are widely used in diverse fields of today's neuroscience, concerning auditory processing, speech perception, language acquisition, neurodevelopment, attention and cognition in normal aging, gender, developmental, neurologic and psychiatric disorders. However, its transposition to clinical practice has remained minimal. Mainly due to scarce literature on normative data across age, wide spectrum of results, variety of auditory stimuli used and to different neuropsychological meanings of AERPs components between authors. One of the most prominent AERP components studied in last decades was N1, which reflects auditory detection and discrimination. Subsequently, N2 indicates attention allocation and phonological analysis. The simultaneous analysis of N1 and N2 elicited by feasible novelty experimental paradigms, such as auditory oddball, seems an objective method to assess central auditory processing. The aim of this systematic review was to bring forward normative values for auditory oddball N1 and N2 components across age. EBSCO, PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies that elicited N1 and/or N2 by auditory oddball paradigm. A total of 2,764 papers were initially identified in the database, of which 19 resulted from hand search and additional references, between 1988 and 2013, last 25 years. A final total of 68 studies met the eligibility criteria with a total of 2,406 participants from control groups for N1 (age range 6.6-85 years; mean 34.42) and 1,507 for N2 (age range 9-85 years; mean 36.13). Polynomial regression analysis revealed that N1 latency decreases with aging at Fz and Cz, N1 amplitude at Cz decreases from childhood to adolescence and stabilizes after 30-40 years and at Fz the decrement finishes by 60 years and highly increases after this age. Regarding N2, latency did not covary with age but amplitude showed a significant decrement for both Cz and Fz. Results suggested reliable normative values for Cz and Fz electrode locations; however, changes in brain development and components topography over age should be considered in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…This N100 effect is present when the task is difficult requiring considerable attention for its solution (Hillyard et al, 1973) and is absent when the task is relatively easy (Smith et al, 1970). The overall levels of attention required for the press and count conditions in the relatively easy target detection tasks are probably quite similar since the N100 in grand-averages to targets or nontargets do not differ in amplitude as a function of response requirement (Starr et al, 1995;Picton and Hillyard, 1974) and show only slight differences in scalp distribution (Barrett et al, 1987) or change in amplitude only after repeated testing (Lew and Polich, 1993). The modulation of attention in the period between targets in the press but not the count condition could account for the gradual increase of N100 to non-targets found in the press condition in this study.…”

Section: Processes Acting To Modulate Evoked Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 92%