4.7 Article

Evidence for a frontal cortex role in both auditory and somatosensory habituation: A MEG study

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 827-835

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.042

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NIMH [RO1-MH063476, RO1-NS30914]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Auditory and somatosensory responses to paired stimuli were investigated for commonality of frontal activation that may be associated with gating using magnetoencephalography (MEG). A paired Stimulus paradigm for each sensory evoked study tested right and left hemispheres independently in ten normal controls. MR-FOCUSS, a current density technique, imaged simultaneously active cortical sources. Each subject showed source localization, in the primary auditory OF somatosensory cortex, for the respective stimuli following both the first (SI) and second (S2) impulses. Gating ratios for the auditory M50 response, equivalent to the P50 in EEG, were 0.54 +/- 0.24 and 0.63 +/- 0.52 for the right and left hemispheres. Somatosensory gating ratios were evaluated for early and late latencies as the pulse duration elicits extended response. Early gating ratios for Fight and left hemispheres were 0.69 +/- 0.21 and 0.69 +/- 0.41 while late ratios were 0.81 +/- 0.41 and 0.80 +/- 0.48. Regions of activation in the frontal cortex, beyond the primary auditory or somatosensory cortex, were mapped within 25ms of peak S1 latencies in 9/10 subjects during auditory stimulus and in 10/10 subjects for somatosensory stimulus. Similar frontal activations were mapped within 25ms of peak S2 latencies for 75% of auditory responses and for 100% of somatosensory responses. Comparison between modalities showed similar frontal region activations for 17/20 S1 responses and for 13/20 S2 responses. MEG offers a technique for evaluating cross modality gating. The results Suggest similar frontal Sources are simultaneously active during auditory and somatosensory habituation. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据