Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 7, No. 5, 2002
Issue release date: September–October 2002
Audiol Neurootol 2002;7:303–314

Knowledge of Stimulus Repetition Affects the Magnitude and Spatial Distribution of Low-Frequency Event-Related Brain Potentials

Clementz B.A. · Barber S.K. · Dzau J.R.
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, Calif., USA

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Rate effects are defined as a reduction in amplitude of an evoked brain response with increasing stimulus frequency. In auditory paired-stimulus paradigms, a smaller amplitude evoked response to the second stimulus at a latency of 50 ms has been proposed to index a preattentive sensory gating mechanism. The present study investigated the possibility that expectancy and/or attentional biases could alter evoked potentials associated with rate effects. EEG data were recorded from 30 channels while subjects received 240 trials of 1, 2 or 3 click stimuli (with successive stimuli being separated by 500-ms intervals). Half of the subjects knew (blocked condition) and half of the subjects did not know (mixed condition) how many stimuli they would receive on a given trial. Subjects in the blocked condition had a significantly larger rate effect than subjects in the mixed condition. This effect was present only for low-frequency components of the event-related brain potential (ERP; below 10 Hz) and occurred from 30 to 60, 90 to 160 and 190 to 260 ms after stimulus presentation (P1-N1-P2 complex). Mixed condition subjects also had larger contributions to their ERPs from temporal channels. These results suggest that the rate effect can be significantly altered by expectancy, and they are inconsistent with the thesis that ERPs near 50 ms in a paired-stimulus paradigm solely index a preattentive sensory gating mechanism.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Adler LE, Hoffer LJ, Griffith J, Waldo MC, Freedman, R: Normalization by nicotine of deficient auditory sensory gating in the relatives of schizophrenics. Biol Psychiatry 1992;32:607–616.
  2. Basar E, Asar-Eroglu C, Karakas S, Schürmann M: Brain oscillations in perception and memory. Int J Psychophysiol 2000;35:95–124.

    External Resources

  3. Blumenfeld LD, Clementz BA: Response to the first stimulus determines reduced auditory evoked response suppression in schizophrenia: Single trial analysis using MEG. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112:1650–1659.

    External Resources

  4. Buchsbaum MS: The middle evoked response components and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bull 1977;3:93–104.

    External Resources

  5. Cacace AT, Satya-Murti S, Wolpaw JR: Human middle-latency auditory evoked potentials: Vertex and temporal components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990;77:6–18.
  6. Cardenas VA, Gill P, Fein G: Human P50 suppression is not affected by variations in wakeful alertness. Biol Psychiatry 1997;41:891–901.
  7. Cardenas VA, Yingling CD, Jewett D, Fein G: A multichannel, model-free method for estimation of event-related potential amplitudes and its comparison with dipole source localization. J Med Eng Technol 1995;19:88–98.

    External Resources

  8. Clementz BA: Psychophysiological measures of (dis)inhibition as liability indicators for schizophrenia. Psychophysiology 1998;35:648–668.
  9. Clementz BA, Blumenfeld LD: Multichannel EEG assessment of auditory evoked response suppression in schizophrenia. Exp Brain Res 2001;139:377–390.
  10. Erwin RJ, Turetsky BI, Moberg P, Gur RC, Gur RE: P50 abnormalities in schizophrenia: Relationship to clinical and neuropsychological indices of attention. Schizophrenia Res 1998;33:157–167.
  11. Freedman R, Waldo M, Bickford-Wimer P, Nagamoto H: Elementary neuronal dysfunctions in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Res 1991;4:233–243.
  12. Fruhstorfer H, Soveri P, Järvilehto T: Short-term habituation of the auditory evoked response in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1970;28:153–161.
  13. Grey WW: The Living Brain. London, Duckworth, 1953.
  14. Guterman Y, Josiassen RC, Bashore TR: Attentional influence on the P50 component of the auditory event-related brain potential. Int J Psychophysiol 1992;12:197–209.
  15. Guyton AC: Organ Physiology: Structure and Function of the Nervous System. London, Saunders, 1976.
  16. Jerger K, Biggins C, Fein G: P50 suppression is not affected by attentional manipulations. Biol Psychiatry 1992;31:365–377.
  17. Linden RD, Picton TW, Hamel G, Campbell KB: Human auditory steady-state evoked potentials during selective attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987;66:145–159.
  18. Loveless N, Levänen S, Jousmäki V, Sams M, Hari R: Temporal integration in auditory sensory memory: Neuromagnetic evidence. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1996;100:220–228.
  19. McCallum WC, Curry SH, Cooper R, Pocock PV, Papakostopoulos D: Brain event-related potentials as indicators of early selective processes in auditory target localization. Psychophysiology 1983;20:1–17.

    External Resources

  20. Näätänen R, Picton T: The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987;24:375–425.
  21. Nagamoto HT, Adler LE, Waldo MC, Freedman R: Sensory gating in schizophrenics and normal controls: Effects of changing stimulation interval. Biol Psychiatry 1989;25:549–561.
  22. Pantev C, Elbert T, Makeig S, Hampson S, Eulitz C, Hoke M: Relationship of transient and steady-state auditory evoked fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993;88:389–396.
  23. Pantev C, Ross B, Berg P, Elbert T, Rockstroh B: Study of the human auditory cortices using a whole-head magnetometer: Left vs right hemisphere and ipsilateral vs contralateral stimulation. Audiol Neurootol 1998;3:183–190.
  24. Robinson DL: The technical, neurological and psychological significance of ‘alpha’, ‘delta’ and ‘theta’ waves confounded in EEG evoked potentials: A study of peak latencies. Clin Neurophysiol 1999:110:1427–1434.
  25. Schafer EW, Amochaev A, Russell MJ: Knowledge of stimulus timing attenuates human evoked cortical potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1981;52:9–17.
  26. Schafer EW, Marcus MM: Self-stimulation alters human sensory brain responses. Science 1973;181:175–177.

    External Resources

  27. Shelley AM, Silipo G, Javitt DC: Diminished responsiveness of ERPs in schizophrenic subjects to changes in auditory stimulation parameters: Implications for theories of cortical dysfunction. Schizophrenia Res 1999;37:65–79.
  28. Srinivasan R, Tucker DM: Estimating the spatial Nyquist of the human EEG. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1998;30:8–19.
  29. Waldo MC, Freedman R: Gating of auditory evoked responses in normal college students. Psychiatry Res 1986;19:233–239.
  30. White PM, Yee CM: Effects of attentional and stressor manipulations on the P50 gating response. Psychophysiology 1997;34:703–711.
  31. Woldorff MG, Gallen CC, Hampson SA, Hillyard SA, Pantev C, Sobel D, Bloom FE: Modulation of early sensory processing in human auditory cortex during auditory selective attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993;90:8722–8726.
  32. Woldorff MG, Hillyard SA: Modulation of early auditory processing during selective listening to rapidly presented tones. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;79:170–191.
  33. Yvert B, Crouzeix A, Bertrand O, Seither-Preisler A, Pantev C: Multiple supratemporal sources of magnetic and electric auditory evoked middle latency components in humans. Cereb Cortex 2001;11:411–423.

    External Resources

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50