Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34748108›Full record

ArticleBrain topography2022

Mechanisms of Long-Latency Paired Pulse Suppression: MEG Study.

Nobuyuki Takeuchi, Kohei Fujita, Tomoya Taniguchi, Tomoaki Kinukawa, Shunsuke Sugiyama, Kousuke Kanemoto, Makoto Nishihara, Koji Inui

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nobuyuki TakeuchiNeuropsychiatric Department, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, 480-1195, Japan. jamjam053@yahoo.co.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-8252-3662
Kohei FujitaNeuropsychiatric Department, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, 480-1195, Japan.
Tomoya TaniguchiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Tomoaki KinukawaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Shunsuke SugiyamaDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Gifu University, Gifu, 501-1193, Japan.
Kousuke KanemotoNeuropsychiatric Department, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, 480-1195, Japan.
Makoto NishiharaNeuropsychiatric Department, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, 480-1195, Japan.
Koji InuiDepartment of Functioning and Disability, Institute for Developmental Research, Aichi Developmental Disability Center, Kasugai, 480-0392, Japan.
Aichi Medical University · JPNagoya University · JPAichi Developmental Disability Center · JPGifu University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evoked Potentials, AuditoryMagnetoencephalographyAcoustic StimulationHumansAuditory evoked potential (AEP)Change-related responseSensory gating

Identifiers

PMID34748108
OpenAlexW3214462321

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.