Cargando…
Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning?
Even though auditory training exercises for humans have been shown to improve certain perceptual skills of individuals with and without hearing loss, there is a lack of knowledge pertaining to which aspects of training are responsible for the perceptual gains, and which aspects of perception are cha...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3929834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24600358 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00028 |
_version_ | 1782304454316392448 |
---|---|
author | Tremblay, Kelly L. Ross, Bernhard Inoue, Kayo McClannahan, Katrina Collet, Gregory |
author_facet | Tremblay, Kelly L. Ross, Bernhard Inoue, Kayo McClannahan, Katrina Collet, Gregory |
author_sort | Tremblay, Kelly L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Even though auditory training exercises for humans have been shown to improve certain perceptual skills of individuals with and without hearing loss, there is a lack of knowledge pertaining to which aspects of training are responsible for the perceptual gains, and which aspects of perception are changed. To better define how auditory training impacts brain and behavior, electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) have been used to determine the time course and coincidence of cortical modulations associated with different types of training. Here we focus on P1-N1-P2 auditory evoked responses (AEP), as there are consistent reports of gains in P2 amplitude following various types of auditory training experiences; including music and speech-sound training. The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the auditory evoked P2 response is a biomarker of learning. To do this, we taught native English speakers to identify a new pre-voiced temporal cue that is not used phonemically in the English language so that coinciding changes in evoked neural activity could be characterized. To differentiate possible effects of repeated stimulus exposure and a button-pushing task from learning itself, we examined modulations in brain activity in a group of participants who learned to identify the pre-voicing contrast and compared it to participants, matched in time, and stimulus exposure, that did not. The main finding was that the amplitude of the P2 auditory evoked response increased across repeated EEG sessions for all groups, regardless of any change in perceptual performance. What’s more, these effects are retained for months. Changes in P2 amplitude were attributed to changes in neural activity associated with the acquisition process and not the learned outcome itself. A further finding was the expression of a late negativity (LN) wave 600–900 ms post-stimulus onset, post-training exclusively for the group that learned to identify the pre-voiced contrast. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3929834 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39298342014-03-05 Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? Tremblay, Kelly L. Ross, Bernhard Inoue, Kayo McClannahan, Katrina Collet, Gregory Front Syst Neurosci Neuroscience Even though auditory training exercises for humans have been shown to improve certain perceptual skills of individuals with and without hearing loss, there is a lack of knowledge pertaining to which aspects of training are responsible for the perceptual gains, and which aspects of perception are changed. To better define how auditory training impacts brain and behavior, electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) have been used to determine the time course and coincidence of cortical modulations associated with different types of training. Here we focus on P1-N1-P2 auditory evoked responses (AEP), as there are consistent reports of gains in P2 amplitude following various types of auditory training experiences; including music and speech-sound training. The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the auditory evoked P2 response is a biomarker of learning. To do this, we taught native English speakers to identify a new pre-voiced temporal cue that is not used phonemically in the English language so that coinciding changes in evoked neural activity could be characterized. To differentiate possible effects of repeated stimulus exposure and a button-pushing task from learning itself, we examined modulations in brain activity in a group of participants who learned to identify the pre-voicing contrast and compared it to participants, matched in time, and stimulus exposure, that did not. The main finding was that the amplitude of the P2 auditory evoked response increased across repeated EEG sessions for all groups, regardless of any change in perceptual performance. What’s more, these effects are retained for months. Changes in P2 amplitude were attributed to changes in neural activity associated with the acquisition process and not the learned outcome itself. A further finding was the expression of a late negativity (LN) wave 600–900 ms post-stimulus onset, post-training exclusively for the group that learned to identify the pre-voiced contrast. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3929834/ /pubmed/24600358 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00028 Text en Copyright © 2014 Tremblay, Ross, Inoue, McClannahan and Collet. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Tremblay, Kelly L. Ross, Bernhard Inoue, Kayo McClannahan, Katrina Collet, Gregory Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? |
title | Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? |
title_full | Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? |
title_fullStr | Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? |
title_full_unstemmed | Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? |
title_short | Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? |
title_sort | is the auditory evoked p2 response a biomarker of learning? |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3929834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24600358 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00028 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tremblaykellyl istheauditoryevokedp2responseabiomarkeroflearning AT rossbernhard istheauditoryevokedp2responseabiomarkeroflearning AT inouekayo istheauditoryevokedp2responseabiomarkeroflearning AT mcclannahankatrina istheauditoryevokedp2responseabiomarkeroflearning AT colletgregory istheauditoryevokedp2responseabiomarkeroflearning |