ArticleBrain topography2022
Mechanisms of Long-Latency Paired Pulse Suppression: MEG Study.
Article in Brain topography, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-latency prepulse inhibition of the trigeminal blink reflex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paired pulse suppression is an electrophysiological method used to evaluate sensory suppression and often applied to patients with psychiatric disorders. However, it remains unclear whether the suppression comes from specific inhibitory mechanisms, refractoriness, or fatigue. In the present study, to investigate mechanisms of suppression induced by an auditory paired pulse paradigm in 19 healthy subjects, magnetoencephalography was employed. The control stimulus was a train of 25-ms pure tones of 65 dB SPL for 2500 ms. In order to evoke a test response, the sound pressure of two consecutive tones at 2200 ms in the control sound was increased to 80 dB (Test stimulus). Similar sound pressure changes were also inserted at 1000 (CS2) and 1600 (CS1) ms as conditioning stimuli. Four stimulus conditions were used; (1) Test alone, (2) Test + CS1, (3) Test + CS1 + CS2, and (4) Test + CS2, with the four sound stimuli randomly presented and cortical responses averaged at least 100 times for each condition. The baseline-to-peak and peak-to-peak amplitudes of the P50m, N100m, and P200m components of the test response were compared among the four conditions. In addition, the response to CS1 was compared between conditions (2) and (3). The results showed significant test response suppression by CS1. While the response to CS1 was significantly suppressed when CS2 was present, it did not affect suppression of the test response by CS1. It was thus suggested that the amplitude of the response to a conditioning stimulus is not a factor to determine the inhibitory effects of the test response, indicating that suppression is due to an external influence on the excitatory pathway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.