Abstract

Intra-hemispheric interference has been often observed when body parts with neighboring representations within the same hemisphere are stimulated. However, patterns of interference in early and late somatosensory processing stages due to the stimulation of different body parts have not been explored. Here, we explore functional similarities and differences between attention modulation of the somatosensory N140 and P300 elicited at the fingers vs. cheeks. In an active oddball paradigm, 22 participants received vibrotactile intensity deviant stimulation either ipsilateral (within-hemisphere) or contralateral (between-hemisphere) at the fingers or cheeks. The ipsilateral deviant always covered a larger area of skin than the contralateral deviant. Overall, both N140 and P300 amplitudes were higher following stimulation at the cheek and N140 topographies differed between fingers and cheek stimulation. For the N140, results showed higher deviant ERP amplitudes following contralateral than ipsilateral stimulation, regardless of the stimulated body part. N140 peak latency differed between stimulated body parts with shorter latencies for the stimulation at the fingers. Regarding P300 amplitudes, contralateral deviant stimulation at the fingers replicated the N140 pattern, showing higher responses and shorter latencies than ipsilateral stimulation at the fingers. For the stimulation at the cheeks, ipsilateral deviants elicited higher P300 amplitudes and longer latencies than contralateral ones. These findings indicate that at the fingers ipsilateral deviant stimulation leads to intra-hemispheric interference, with significantly smaller ERP amplitudes than in contralateral stimulation, both at early and late processing stages. By contrast, at the cheeks, intra-hemispheric interference is selective for early processing stages. Therefore, the mechanisms of intra-hemispheric processing differ from inter-hemispheric ones and the pattern of intra-hemispheric interference in early and late processing stages is body-part specific.

Highlights

  • Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) are widely explored in visual and auditory oddball designs, but commonly examined brain responses occur in somatosensory oddball stimulations (Desmedt and Robertson, 1977; Yamaguchi and Knight, 1991; Satomi et al, 1995; Ito and Takamatsu, 1997; Nakajima and Imamura, 2000a)

  • The function of the N200/P200 complex lies in the detection of differences in the sensory environment and is independent of the sensory modality of ongoing stimulus and the underlying neural processes can be similar to those of the cognitive P300 (Mouraux and Iannetti, 2009) which occurs in discrimination tasks, or oddball paradigms

  • We aimed to investigate functional similarities and differences among the N140 and P300 measures of somatosensory processing and wanted to explore to what extent any effects are specific to the representation of certain body parts

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) are widely explored in visual and auditory oddball designs, but commonly examined brain responses occur in somatosensory oddball stimulations (Desmedt and Robertson, 1977; Yamaguchi and Knight, 1991; Satomi et al, 1995; Ito and Takamatsu, 1997; Nakajima and Imamura, 2000a). The functional significance of various scalp potentials evoked by sensory stimuli has been extensively examined, often in oddball paradigms. Some such potentials, which can be identified by their polarity and latency, are for example the N100, N200, P200, and P300. Despite differences in the latency and amplitude between the auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulus modalities, the scalp topography of the P300 is broadly similar in all three modalities (Snyder et al, 1980)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call