DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20204191

Latency and amplitude of P300 using speech and non-speech stimuli - a normative study

Bhimraj B. Ramteke, Sushil N. Meshram

Abstract


Background: The P300 was among the first auditory response in a collection of events related or endogenous evoked responses. The P300 is related to cognition and use of knowledge about the environment.

Methods: The subjects (n=60) selected with an equal distribution of genders. P300 evoked potentials elicited by non-speech and speech stimuli is recorded.  

Results: There is a significant difference in latency of P300 for speech verses non-speech stimuli as well as there is a significant difference in the latency of P300 among males and females for speech versus non speech stimuli. No significant difference in amplitude of P300 for speech versus non-speech stimuli and for right versus left ears.

Conclusions: P300 latency is influenced by stimulus used and gender variation. The present study showed that the non-speech stimuli had lower latencies compared with speech stimuli. For the P300 amplitude values, the difference between groups were not significant.


Keywords


Auditory evoked response, Event-related potentials, P300, Latency, Amplitude

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hall JW. Handbook of auditory evoked responses. Allyn & Bacon. 1992.

McPherson DL. Late Potentials of the Auditory System. San Diego, California: Singu Publish Gro Inc. 1996;1128-34.

Starr AR, Don MA. Brain potentials evoked by acoustic stimuli. Human event-related potentials: EEG handbo. 1988;3:97-157.

Walker L. Late auditory evoked potentials as electrophysiological indices of behavioral discrimination. East Carolina University; 2005.

Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Scien. 1965;150(3700):1187-8.

Gibson EJ. Principles of perceptual learning and development.

Baars BJ. Contrastive phenomenology: A thoroughly empirical approach to consciousness. The nature of consciousness: Phiolosophical controversies. 1997: 187-202.

Michalewski HJ, Rosenberg C, Starr A. Event-related potentials in dementia. Frontiers of clinical neuroscience. 1986;3:521-8.

Johnson Jr R. The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential: Review and synthesis. Advances in psychophysiology. 1988;3:69-137.

Kaga K, Kodera K, Hirota E, Tsuzuku T. P300 response to tones and speech sounds after cochlear implant: a case report. Laryngos. 1995;101(8):905-7.

Kaufman MJ, editor. Brain imaging in substance abuse: research, clinical, and forensic applications. Springer Science & Business Media. 2000.

Geal-Dor M, Kamenir Y, Babkoff H. Event related potentials response: comparison of tonal stimuli to speech stimuli in phonological and semantic tasks. J Basic Clinic Physiol Pharmacol. 2005;16(2-3):139-55.

Tampas JW, Harkrider AW, Hedrick MS. Neurophysiological indices of speech and nonspeech stimulus processing. J Spee Langua Heari Resear. 2005.

Lew HL, Slimp J, Price R, Massagli TL, Robinson LR. Comparison of speech-evoked v tone-evoked p300 response: implications for predicting outcomes in patients with Traumatic Brain Injury1. Americ J Physic Medic Rehabilitat. 1999;78(4):367-71.

Polich J, Martin S. P300, cognitive capability, and personality: A correlational study of university undergraduates. Personality and individual differences. 1992;13(5):533-43.