Sensitivity of EEG and MEG to the N1 and P2 auditory evoked responses modulated by spectral complexity of sounds

Brain Topography

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 55-61

  Shahin, Antoine J ^a,b   Roberts, Larry E ^c   Miller, Lee M ^a   McDonald, Kelly L ^b   Alain, Claude ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b ROTMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Auditory cortex; EEG; MEG; Source analysis; Spectral complexity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CINGULATE GYRUS; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPECTROSCOPY; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; REACTION TIME;

EID: 35448933723     PISSN: 08960267     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10548-007-0031-4     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Hämäläinen M, Hari R, Ilmoniemi RJ, Kunuutila J, Lounasmaa OV. Magnetoencephalography: theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Rev Modern Phys 1993;65:413-97.
2. Nunez PL, Srinivasan R. Electric fields of the brain: the neurophysics of EEG. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006.
3. Neukirch M, Hegerl U, Kotitz R, Dorn H, Gallinat J, Herrmann WM. Comparison of the amplitude/intensity function of the auditory evoked N1m and N1 components. Neuropsychobiology 2002;45:41-8.
4. Cuffin BN, Cohen D. Comparison of the magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1979;47:132-46.
5. Cohen D, Cuffin BN. Demonstration of useful differences between magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983;56:38-51.
6. Phillips JW, Leahy RM, Mosher JC, Timsari B. Imaging neural activity using MEG and EEG. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 1997;16:34-42.
7. Barkley GL. Controversies in neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in localization of interictal epileptiform activity. Pro Clin Neurophysiol 2004;115:1001-9.
8. Baumgartner C. Controversies in clinical neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in the localization of interictal epileptiform activity. Con Clin Neurophysiol 2004;115:1010-20.
9. Leahy RM, Mosher JC, Spencer ME, Huang MX, Lewine JD. A study of dipole localization accuracy for MEG and EEG using a human skull phantom. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998;107:159-73.
10. Scherg M, Vajsar J, Picton TW. A source analysis of the late human auditory evoked potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 1989;1: 336-55.
11. Picton TW, Alain C, Woods DL, John MS, Scherg M, Valdes-Sosa P, Bosch-Bayard J, Trujillo NJ. Intracerebral sources of human auditory evoked potentials. Audiol Neurootol 1999;4: 64-79.
12. Shahin A, Bosnyak DJ, Trainor LJ, Roberts LE. Enhancement of neuroplastic P2 and N1c auditory evoked potentials in skilled musicians. J Neurosci 2003;23:5545-52.
13. Shahin A, Roberts LE, Pantev C, Trainor LJ, Ross B. Modulation of P2 auditory-evoked responses by the spectral complexity of musical sounds. Neuroreport 2005;16:1781-5.
14. Pantev C, Bertrand O, Eulitz C, Verkindt C, Hampson S, Schuierer G, Elbert T. Specific tonotopic organizations of different areas of the human auditory cortex revealed by simultaneous magnetic and electric recordings. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;94:26-40.
15. Siedenberg R, Goodin DS, Aminoff MJ, Rowley HA, Roberts TP. Comparison of late components in simultaneously recorded event-related electrical potentials and event-related magnetic fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1996;99:191-7.
16. Huotilainen M, Winkler I, Alho K, Escera C, Virtanen J, Ilmoniemi RJ, Jääskeläinen IP, Pekkonen E, Näätänen R. Combined mapping of human auditory EEG and MEG responses. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998;108:370-9.
17. Surwillo WW. Cortical evoked potentials in monozygotic twins and unrelated subjects: comparisons of exogenous and endogenous components. Behav Genet 1980;10:201-9.
18. Picton TW. The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. J Clin Neurophysiol 1992;9:456-79.
19. Scherg M. Fundamentals of dipole source potential analysis. In: Grandori F, Hoke M, Romani GL, editors. Auditory evoked magnetic fields and electric potentials. Advances in audiology, vol. 6. Basel: Karger; 1990. pp. 40-69.
20. Helmholz H. Ueber einiger gezetze der vertailung elektrischer strome in korperlichen leiter mit anwendungauf die thierishch electrischeb versuche. Pogg Ann Physik Chemie 1853;33: 353-77.
21. Oosterom AV. History and evaluation of methods for solving the inverse problem. J Clin Neurophysiol 1991;8:371-80.
22. Lütkenhöner B, Steinstrater O. High-precision neuromagnetic study of the functional organization of the human auditory cortex. Audiol Neurootol 1998;3:191-213.
23. Seither-Preisler A, Krumbholz K, Lütkenhöner B. Sensitivity of the neuromagnetic N100m deflection to spectral bandwidth: a function of the auditory periphery? Audiol Neurootol 2003;8:322-37.
24. Hari R, Pelizzone M, Mäkelä JP, Hallstrom J, Leinonen L, Lounasmaa OV. Neuromagnetic responses of the human auditory cortex to on- and offsets of noise bursts. Audiology 1987;26: 31-43.
25. Pantev C, Eulitz C, Hampson S, Ross B, Roberts LE. The auditory evoked "off" response: sources and comparison with the "on" and the "sustained" responses. Ear Hear 1996;17: 255-65.
26. Engelien A, Schulz M, Ross B, Arolt V, Pantev, C. A combined functional in vivo measure for primary and secondary auditory cortices. Hear Res 2000;148:153-60.
27. Yvert B, Fischer C, Bertrand O, Pernier J. Localization of human supratemporal auditory areas form intracerebral auditory evoked potentials using distributed source models. Neuroimage 2005;28: 140-53.
28. Rademacher J, Morosan P, Schormann T, Schleicher A, Werner C, Freund HJ, Zilles K. Probabilistic mapping and volume measurement of human primary auditory cortex. NeuroImage 2001;13:669-83.
29. Penhune VB, Zatorre RJ, MacDonald JD, Evans AC. Interhemispheric anatomical differences in human primary auditory cortex: probabilistic mapping and volume measurement from magnetic resonance scans. Cereb Cortex 1996;6:661-72.
30. Mäkelä JP, Hämäläinen M, Hari R, McEvoy L. Whole-head mapping of middle-latency auditory evoked magnetic fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994;92:414-21.
31. Menning H, Roberts LE, Pantev C. Plastic changes in the auditory cortex induced by intensive frequency discrimination training. Neuroreport 2000;11:817-22.
32. Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B. Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 2001;22:79-90.
33. Reinke KS, He Y, Wang C, Alain C. Perceptual learning modulates sensory evoked response during vowel segregation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2003;17:781-91.
34. Bosnyak DJ, Eaton RA, Roberts LE. Distributed auditory cortical representations are modified when non-musicians are trained at pitch discrimination with 40 Hz amplitude modulated tones. Cereb Cortex 2004;14:1088-99.
35. Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, Don M. Maturation of human central auditory system activity: evidence from multi-channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2000;111:220-36.
36. Shahin A, Roberts LE, Trainor LJ. Enhancement of auditory cortical development by musical experience in children. Neuroreport 2004;15:1917-21.
37. Rauschecker JP, Tian B, Hauser M. Processing of complex sounds in the macaque nonprimary auditory cortex. Science 1995;268:111-4.
38. Tian B, Reser D, Durham A, Kustov A, Rauschecker JP. Functional specialization in rhesus monkey auditory cortex. Science 2001;292:290-3.
39. Cohen D, Cuffin BN, Yunokuchi K, Maniewski R, Purcell C, Cosgrove GR, Ives J, Kennedy JG, Schomer DL. MEG versus EEG localization test using implanted sources in the human brain. Ann Neurol 1990;28:811-7.
40. Crease RP. Images of conflict: MEG vs. EEG. Science 1991;253:374-5.