Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, 177:21 | Cite as

Effects of stimulus frequency and duration on somatosensory discrimination responses

  • L. A. Spackman
  • S. G. Boyd
  • A. Towell
Research Article

Abstract

Somatosensory processing of duration and frequency changes was investigated using event-related potentials to vibrotactile stimuli. Intermittent vibration to the fingertips of either hand was presented using a two-stimulus odd-ball paradigm (deviant P = 0.10). One group (N = 12, 18–38 years) was presented with stimulus pairs of 20/70, 50/150 and 170/250 ms. A second group (N = 10, 19–34 years) was tested using frequency pairs of 200/70 Hz. A psychophysical study examined the subjects’ ability to discriminate between different stimulus pairs. A clear negative shift in the response to the deviant stimulus was recorded with all the stimulus conditions used in both experiments. Both frequency changes and duration increments/decrements revealed an initial negativity in the subtraction waveform with a mean onset of 90–170 ms and a following positivity, both of which were dependent on the duration of the stimulus used. A significant decrease in the amplitude of both components was observed with the 170/250 ms pairing, coinciding with a positive correlation between individual discrimination performance and amplitude. These results support the existence of a somatosensory mismatch response with features similar to those of the aMMN and highlight the relevance of the somatosensory-specific positivity. Results from the duration experiment also resolve some of the discrepancies between previous studies.

Keywords

Electrophysiology Evoked potentials Somatosensory Cognition 

References

  1. Akatsuka K, Wasada T, Nakata H, Inui K, Hoshiyama M, Kakigi R (2005) Mismatch responses related to temporal discrimination of somatosensory stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 116:1930–1937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amendo E, Escera C (2000) The accuracy of sound representation in the human brain determines the accuracy of behavioural perception. Eur J Neurosci 12:2570–2574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman CR, Colpitts YH, Mayeno JK, Gagliardi GJ (1981) Rate of stimulus repetition changes evoked potential amplitude: dental and auditory modalities compared. Exp Brain Res 43:246–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hämäläinen H, Sams M, Pertovaara A, Carlson S, Reinikainen K, Näätänen R (1988) Different functional roles of SI and SII somatosensory cortices as reflected by evoked potentials and multiple-unit responses to mechanical stimulation in awake monkey. Neurosci Res Commun 2:143–150Google Scholar
  5. Hoshiyama M, Kakigi R, Tamura Y (2004) Temporal discrimination threshold on various parts of the body. Muscle Nerve 29:243–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jaramillo M, Paavilainen P, Näätänen R (2000) Mismatch negativity and behavioural discrimination in humans as a function of the magnitude of change in sound duration. Neurosci Lett 290(2):101–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kekoni J, Hämäläinen H, Saarinen M, Gröhn J, Reinikainene K, Lehtokoski A, Näätänen R (1997) Rate effect and mismatch responses in the somatosensory system: ERP-recordings in humans. Biol Psychol 46:125–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kida T, Nishihira Y, Hatta A, Fumoto M, Wasaka T (2001) Automatic mismatch detection in somatosensory modality and the effect of stimulus probability. Jpn J Clin Neurophysiol 29:417–424Google Scholar
  9. McCarthy G, Wood CC (1985) Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 62:203–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mima T, Nagamine T, Nakamura K, Shibasaki H (1998) Attention modulates both primary and second somatosensory cortical activities in humans: a magnetoencephalographic study. J Neurophysiol 80(4):2215–2221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Näätänen R (1992) Attention and brain function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  12. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rothman H, Davis H, Hay I (1970) Slow evoked cortical potentials and temporal features of stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 29:225–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shinozaki N, Yabe H, Sutoh Y, Hiruma T, Kaneko S (1998) Somatosensory automatic responses to deviant stimuli. Cogn Brain Res 7:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shroger E (1996) A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. J Cogn Neurosci 8:527–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Spackman LA, Worely A, Boyd SG (2005) Can normal variations in behaviour change vSERPs? In: IPEM proceedings of the 12th annual scientific meeting, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  17. Yamaguchi S, Knight RT (1991) P300 generation by novel somatosensory stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 78(1):50–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical NeurophysiologyGreat Ormond Street HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations