Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24961573›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2015

The development of the N1 and N2 components in auditory oddball paradigms: a systematic review with narrative analysis and suggested normative values.

David Tomé, Fernando Barbosa, Kamila Nowak, João Marques-Teixeira

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Aging Impacts Basic Auditory and Timing Processes.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David ToméDepartment of Audiology, School of Allied Health Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal, dts@estsp.ipp.pt.
Fernando Barbosa
Kamila Nowak
João Marques-Teixeira
Universidade do Porto · PTInstytut Biologii Doświadczalnej im. Marcelego Nenckiego · PLPolytechnic Institute of Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Auditory event-related potentials (AERPs) are widely used in diverse fields of today's neuroscience, concerning auditory processing, speech perception, language acquisition, neurodevelopment, attention and cognition in normal aging, gender, developmental, neurologic and psychiatric disorders. However, its transposition to clinical practice has remained minimal. Mainly due to scarce literature on normative data across age, wide spectrum of results, variety of auditory stimuli used and to different neuropsychological meanings of AERPs components between authors. One of the most prominent AERP components studied in last decades was N1, which reflects auditory detection and discrimination. Subsequently, N2 indicates attention allocation and phonological analysis. The simultaneous analysis of N1 and N2 elicited by feasible novelty experimental paradigms, such as auditory oddball, seems an objective method to assess central auditory processing. The aim of this systematic review was to bring forward normative values for auditory oddball N1 and N2 components across age. EBSCO, PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies that elicited N1 and/or N2 by auditory oddball paradigm. A total of 2,764 papers were initially identified in the database, of which 19 resulted from hand search and additional references, between 1988 and 2013, last 25 years. A final total of 68 studies met the eligibility criteria with a total of 2,406 participants from control groups for N1 (age range 6.6-85 years; mean 34.42) and 1,507 for N2 (age range 9-85 years; mean 36.13). Polynomial regression analysis revealed that N1 latency decreases with aging at Fz and Cz, N1 amplitude at Cz decreases from childhood to adolescence and stabilizes after 30-40 years and at Fz the decrement finishes by 60 years and highly increases after this age. Regarding N2, latency did not covary with age but amplitude showed a significant decrement for both Cz and Fz. Results suggested reliable normative values for Cz and Fz electrode locations; however, changes in brain development and components topography over age should be considered in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrainChildCognitionDatabases, BibliographicElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, AuditoryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID24961573
OpenAlexW2131646842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.