Stimulation-history effects on the M100 revealed by its differential dependence on the stimulus onset interval

Psychophysiology

Volumn 49, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 909-919

  Zacharias, Norman ^a   König, Reinhard ^a   Heil, Peter ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR NEUROBIOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Auditory evoked magnetic fields; Context dependence; Geometric averaging; Magnetoencephalography; Modeling; Stimulus onset interval

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862317837     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01370.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Budd, T. W., Barry, R. J., Gordon, E., Rennie, C., & Michie, P. T. (1998). Decrement of the N1 auditory event-related potential with stimulus repetition: Habituation vs. refractoriness. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 31, 51-68. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8760(98)00040-3
2. Budd, T. W., & Michie, P. T. (1994). Facilitation of the N1 peak of the auditory ERP at short stimulus intervals. NeuroReport, 5, 2513-2516. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199412000-00027
3. Davis, H., Mast, T., Yoshie, N., & Zerlin, N. (1966). The slow response of the human cortex to auditory stimuli: Recovery process. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 21, 105-113. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(66)90118-0
4. Fruhstorfer, H., Soveri, P., & Järvilehto, T. (1970). Short-term habituation of the auditory evoked response in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 28, 153-161. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(70)90183-5
5. Hari, R., Kaila, K., Katila, T., Tuomisto, T., & Varpula, T. (1982). Interstimulus interval dependence of the auditory vertex response and its magnetic counterpart: Implications for their neural generation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 54, 561-569. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(82)90041-4
6. Ille, N., Berg, P., & Scherg, M. (2002). Artifact correction of the ongoing EEG using spatial filters based on artefact and brain signal topographies. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 19, 113-124. doi: 10.1097/00004691-200203000-00002
7. Imada, T., Watanabe, M., Mashiko, T., Kawakatsu, M., & Kotani, M. (1997). The silent period between sounds has a stronger effect than the interstimulus interval on auditory evoked magnetic fields. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 102, 37-45. doi: 10.1016/S0013-4694(96)95125-1
8. Keidel, W. D., & Spreng, M. (1965). Neurophysiological evidence for the Stevens power function in man. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 38, 191-195. doi: 10.1121/1.1909629
9. Loveless, N., & Hari, R. (1993). Auditory evoked fields covary with perceptual grouping. Biological Psychology, 35, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(93)90088-P
10. Loveless, N., Hari, R., Hämäläinen, M., & Tiihonen, J. (1989). Evoked responses of human auditory cortex may be enhanced by preceding stimuli. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 74, 217-227. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(89)90008-4
11. Loveless, N., Levänen, S., Jousmäki, V., Sams, M., & Hari, R. (1996). Temporal integration in auditory sensory memory: Neuromagnetic evidence. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 100, 220-228. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(95)00271-5
12. Lu, Z.-L., Williamson, S. J., & Kaufman, L. (1992a). Behavioral lifetime of human auditory sensory memory predicted by physiological measures. Science, 258, 1668-1670. doi: 10.1126/science.1455246
13. Lu, Z.-L., Williamson, S. J., & Kaufman, L. (1992b). Human auditory primary and association cortex have differing lifetimes for activation traces. Brain Research, 572, 236-241. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(92)90475-O
14. Lütkenhöner, B., Lammertmann, C., & Knecht, S. (2001). Latency of auditory evoked field deflection N100m ruled by pitch or spectrum? Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 6, 263-278. doi: 10.1159/000046132
15. Mäkelä, J. P., Ahonen, A., Hämäläinen, M., Hari, R., Ilmoniemi, R., Kajola, M., ... Vasama, J.-P. (1993). Functional differences between auditory cortices of the two hemispheres revealed by whole-head neuromagnetic recordings. Human Brain Mapping, 1, 48-56. doi: 10.1002/hbm.460010106
16. McEvoy, L., Levänen, S., & Loveless, N. (1997). Temporal characteristics of auditory sensory memory: Neuromagnetic evidence. Psychophysiology, 34, 308-316. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02401.x
17. Näätänen, R. (1992). Attention and brain function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Näätänen, R., & Picton, T. (1987). The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic responses to sound: A review and analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24, 375-425. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x
19. Nelson, A. Lassman, F. M., & Hoel, R. L. (1969). The effect of variable-interval and fixed-interval signal presentation schedules on the auditory evoked response. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 199-209.
20. Onitsuka, T., Ninomiya, H., Sato, E., Yamamoto, T., & Tashiro, N. (2000). The effect of interstimulus intervals and between-block rests on the auditory evoked potential and magnetic field: Is the auditory P50 in humans an overlapping potential? Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 237-245. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00241-2
21. Pantev, C., Elbert, T., Makeig, S., Hampson, S., Eulitz, C., & Hoke, M. (1993). Relationship of transient and steady-state auditory evoked fields. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 88, 389-396. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(93)90015-H
22. Pantev, C., Khachidze, O., Galle, E., Gobsch, H. & Sasama, R. (1974). Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP) am Menschen bei periodischen und zufallsverteilten Reizintervallen [Acoustically evoked potentials (AEP) in man due to either periodic signals or due to broad-band signals]. Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 208, 193-202. doi: 10.1007/BF00456292
23. Pantev, C., Ross, B., Berg, P., Ebert, T., & Rockstroh, B. (1998). Study of the human auditory cortices using a whole-head magnetometer: Left vs. right hemisphere and ipsilateral vs. contralateral stimulation. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 3, 183-190. doi: 10.1159/000013789
24. Roeber, U., Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2003). Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: An event-related potential and behavioral study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 341-349. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00377-2
25. Rosburg, T., Zimmerer, K., & Huonker, R., (2010). Short-term habituation of auditory evoked potential and neuromagnetic field components in dependence of the interstimulus interval. Experimental Brain Research, 205, 559-570. doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2391-3
26. Rothman, H. H., Davis, H., & Hay, I. S. (1970). Slow evoked cortical potentials and temporal features of stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 29, 225-232. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(70)90135-5
27. Sable, J. J., Low, K. A., Maclin, E. L., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2004). Latent inhibition mediates N1 attenuation to repeating sounds. Psychophysiology, 41, 636-642. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00192.x
28. Sams, M., Hari, R., Rif, J., & Knuutila, J. (1993). The human auditory sensory memory trace persists about 10sec: Neuromagnetic evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 363-370. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.3.363
29. Todd, J., Michie, P. T., Budd, T. W., Rock, D., & Jablensky, A. V. (2000). Auditory sensory memory in schizophrenia: Inadequate trace formation? Psychiatry Research, 96, 99-115. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(00)00205-5
30. Wang, A. L., Mouraux, A., Liang, M., & Ianetti, G. D. (2008). The enhancement of the N1 wave elicited by sensory stimuli presented at very short inter-stimulus intervals is a general feature across sensory systems. PLoS ONE, 3, e3929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003929
31. Zacharias, N., Sieluzycki, C., Kordecki, W., König, R., & Heil, P. (2011). The M100 component of evoked magnetic fields differs by scaling factors: Implications for signal averaging. Psychophysiology, 48, 1069-1082. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01183.x
32. Zacharias, N., Sieluzycki, C., Matysiak, A., König, R., & Heil, P. (2010). Relevant observations for averaging stimulus evoked magnetic fields across trials and across subjects. IFBME Proceedings, 28, 179-182. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12197-5_39