Cited by 159Neuroscience and Music PerceptionHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Stimulus experience modifies auditory neuromagnetic responses in young and older listeners

Open access
Ross, Bernhard, Tremblay, Kelly·2009·Hearing Research

Abstract

Experiencing repeatedly presented auditory stimuli during magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recording may affect how the sound is processed in the listener's brain and may modify auditory evoked responses over the time course of the experiment. Amplitudes of N1 and P2 responses have been proposed as indicators for the outcome of training and learning studies. In this context the effect of merely sound experience on N1 and P2 responses was studied during two experimental sessions on different days with young, middle-aged, and older participants passively listening to speech stimuli and a noise sound. N1 and P2 were characterized as functionally distinct responses with P2 sources located more anterior than N1 in auditory cortices. N1 amplitudes decreased continuously during each recording session, but completely recovered between sessions. In contrast, P2 amplitudes were fairly constant within a session but increased from the first to the second day of MEG recording. Whereas N1 decrease was independent of age, the amount of P2 amplitude increase diminished with age. Temporal dynamics of N1 and P2 amplitudes were interpreted as reflecting neuroplastic changes along different time scales. The long lasting increase in P2 amplitude indicates that the auditory P2 response is potentially an important physiological correlate of perceptual learning, memory, and training.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heares.2008.11.012

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ross, B., & Tremblay, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Ross, Bernhard
Venue
Hearing Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
248
Issue
1-2
Pages
48-59
ISSN
0378-5955 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979588675
Cited by
159
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 14
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dc007705-05)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01-DC007705)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
auditory evoked potentials, N1 response, aging, neuroplasticity, perceptual learning, speech perception, noise perception, auditory cortex
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Aged, Aging, Analysis of Variance, Auditory Cortex, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Hearing, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuronal Plasticity, Noise, Speech, Speech Perception, Time Factors, Magnetoencephalography, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review