Cited by 35EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesTreatment of Major Depression

Hemispatial PCA dissociates temporal from parietal ERP generator patterns: CSD components in healthy adults and depressed patients during a dichotic oddball task

Open access
TENKE, C, KAYSER, J, SHANKMAN, S, GRIGGS, C, LEITE, P, STEWART, J, BRUDER, G·2008·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Event-related potentials (31-channel ERPs) were recorded from 38 depressed, unmedicated outpatients and 26 healthy adults (all right-handed) in tonal and phonetic oddball tasks developed to exploit the perceptual challenge of a dichotic stimulation. Tonal nontargets were pairs of complex tones (corresponding to musical notes G and B above middle C) presented simultaneously to each ear (L/R) in an alternating series (G/B or B/G; 2-s fixed SOA). A target tone (note A) replaced one of the pair on 20% of the trials (A/B, G/A, B/A, A/G). Phonetic nontargets were L/R pairs of syllables (/ba/, /da/) with a short voice onset time (VOT), and targets contained a syllable (/ta/) with a long VOT. Subjects responded with a left or right button press to targets (counterbalanced across blocks). Target detection was poorer in patients than controls and for tones than syllables. Reference-free current source densities (CSDs; spherical spline Laplacian) derived from ERP waveforms were simplified and measured using temporal, covariance-based PCA followed by unrestricted Varimax rotation. Target-related N2 sinks and mid-parietal P3 sources were represented by CSD factors peaking at 245 and 440 ms. The P3 source topography included a secondary, left-lateralized temporal lobe maximum for both targets and nontargets. However, a subsequent hemispheric spatiotemporal PCA disentangled temporal lobe N1 and P3 sources as distinct factors. P3 sources were reduced in patients compared with controls, even after using performance as a covariate. Results are consistent with prior reports of P3 reduction in depression and implicate distinct parietal and temporal generators of P3 when using a dichotic oddball paradigm.

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.ijpsycho.2007.09.001

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Studies comparing oddball task performance often find that unmedicated major depressive disorder patients respond more slowly than healthy controls.

    “Studies comparing oddball task performance by unmedicated MDD patients versus healthy controls often find that MDD patients respond more slowly than controls23–25, suggesting that even in the absence of overt distraction attentional focus is impaired.”

    From Paying attention to attention in depression (2019) · cites this paper as [24]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Dixon WJ, editor. BMDP Statistical Software Manual to Accompany the 7.0 Software Release. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA: 1992. [Google Scholar]
  2. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Biometrics Research Department. New York State Psychiatric Institute; New York, NY: 1996. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis-I Disorders-- Non-patient Edition (SCID-NP) [Google Scholar]
  3. Spencer KM, Wijesinghe1 RS, Dien J, Donchin E. Prefrontal activity in oddball paradigms as measured by scalp current density. Psychophysiology. 1999;36:S111. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
TENKE, C., KAYSER, J., SHANKMAN, S., GRIGGS, C., LEITE, P., STEWART, J., & BRUDER, G.
Affiliations
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
TENKE, C
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
67
Issue
1
Pages
1-16
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088382156
Cited by
35
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-50715, R01MH050715, MH36295, R01MH036295)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
depression, event-related potentials, current source density, P300, N2 component, voice onset time
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Auditory Perception, Brain Mapping, Depressive Disorder, Dichotic Listening Tests, Discrimination, Psychological, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Parietal Lobe, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Space Perception, Temporal Lobe, Case-Control Studies, Event-Related Potentials, P300, Principal Component Analysis

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