Auditory evoked potentials to verbal stimuli in healthy, aphasic, and right hemisphere damaged subjects

1982 ◽  
Vol 231 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aribert Rothenberger ◽  
J�zsef Szirtes ◽  
Reinhart J�rgens
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Verbal Stimuli

scholarly journals A novel method of brainstem auditory evoked potentials using complex verbal stimuli

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 418 ◽  
Author(s):  
SophiaN Kouni ◽  
Constantinos Koutsojannis ◽  
Nausika Ziavra ◽  
Sotirios Giannopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Verbal Stimuli ◽  
Novel Method

scholarly journals Effects of stimulation intensity, gender and handedness upon auditory evoked potentials

1992 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susana Camposano ◽  
Fernando Lolas
Keyword(s):  
Corpus Callosum ◽  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Stimulus Intensity ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Cognitive Components ◽  
Left Handed ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Right ◽  
Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

Left handers and women show less anatomical brain asymmetry, larger corpus callosum and more bilateral representation of specific functions. Sensory and cognitive components of cortical auditory evoked potentials (AEF) have been shown to be asymmetric in right handed males and to be influenced by stimulus intensity. In this study the influence of sex, handedness and stimulus intensity upon AEP components is investigated under basal conditions of passive attention. 14 right handed males, 14 right handed females, 14 left handed males, and 14 left handed females were studied while lying awake and paying passive attention to auditory stimulation (series of 100 binaural clicks, duration 1 msec, rate 1/sec, at four intensities). Cz, C3 and C4 referenced to linked mastoids and right EOG were recorded. Analysis time was 400 msec, average evoked potentials were based on 100 clicks. Stimulus intensity and gender affect early sensory components (P1N1 and N1P2) at central leads, asymmetry is influenced only by handedness, right handers showing larger P1N1 amplitudes over the right hemisphere.

scholarly journals Electrical neuroimaging during auditory motion aftereffects reveals that auditory motion processing is motion sensitive but not direction selective

2013 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Magezi ◽  
Karin A. Buetler ◽  
Leila Chouiter ◽  
Jean-Marie Annoni ◽  
Lucas Spierer
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Prolonged Exposure ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Auditory Motion ◽  
Global Field Power ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Electrical Neuroimaging ◽  
Motion Detectors

Following prolonged exposure to adaptor sounds moving in a single direction, participants may perceive stationary-probe sounds as moving in the opposite direction [direction-selective auditory motion aftereffect (aMAE)] and be less sensitive to motion of any probe sounds that are actually moving (motion-sensitive aMAE). The neural mechanisms of aMAEs, and notably whether they are due to adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors, as found in vision, is presently unknown and would provide critical insight into auditory motion processing. We measured human behavioral responses and auditory evoked potentials to probe sounds following four types of moving-adaptor sounds: leftward and rightward unidirectional, bidirectional, and stationary. Behavioral data replicated both direction-selective and motion-sensitive aMAEs. Electrical neuroimaging analyses of auditory evoked potentials to stationary probes revealed no significant difference in either global field power (GFP) or scalp topography between leftward and rightward conditions, suggesting that aMAEs are not based on adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors. By contrast, the bidirectional and stationary conditions differed significantly in the stationary-probe GFP at 200 ms poststimulus onset without concomitant topographic modulation, indicative of a difference in the response strength between statistically indistinguishable intracranial generators. The magnitude of this GFP difference was positively correlated with the magnitude of the motion-sensitive aMAE, supporting the functional relevance of the neurophysiological measures. Electrical source estimations revealed that the GFP difference followed from a modulation of activity in predominantly right hemisphere frontal-temporal-parietal brain regions previously implicated in auditory motion processing. Our collective results suggest that auditory motion processing relies on motion-sensitive, but, in contrast to vision, non-direction-selective mechanisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document