CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 123Genetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchWilliams Syndrome Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Augmentation of auditory N1 in children with fragile X syndrome.

Castrén, Maija, Pääkkönen, Ari, Tarkka, Ina M., Ryynänen, Markku, Partanen, Juhani·2003·Brain Topography
DOI 10.1023/a:1022606200636
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We compared the N1 responses of the auditory event-related brain potentials (ERPs) in school-aged children with fragile X syndrome to age-matched controls in order to assess auditory processing. Event-related potentials to non-attended standard and deviant tone stimuli were recorded with EEG electrodes and here the standard tones were analysed. The amplitude of the N1 component to standard tones was significantly larger in children with fragile X syndrome than in control children. In addition, the global field power maximum of ERP corresponding to the N2 component was significantly (p<0.05) larger in fragile X children than in controls. The N2 scalp distribution in children with fragile X syndrome appeared more frontal than that in controls. Furthermore, the fragile X children exhibited no habituation of N1 and an absence of N2 sensitization for repeated tones. Increased responsiveness observed in the N1 evoked potential together with abnormal habituation of auditory responses in childhood may indicate increased sensory sensitivity for auditory stimuli in fragile X syndrome. The data, though very limited, suggest that stimulus processing in the auditory afferent pathways and/or in the corresponding cortical receiving areas is abnormal in children with fragile X syndrome.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1022606200636

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Auditory hypersensitivity is common in humans with FXS as measured by increased sound evoked responses, reduced habituation and expansion of brain regions activated by auditory stimuli.

    “Auditory hypersensitivity is common in humans with FXS as measured by increased sound evoked responses, reduced habituation and expansion of brain regions activated by auditory stimuli (Rojas et al., 2001; Castrén et al., 2003; Van der Molen et al., 2012; Ethridge et al., 2016).”

    From The Perineuronal ‘Safety’ Net? Perineuronal Net Abnormalities in Neurological Disorders (2018) · cites this paper as Castrén et al., 2003

  • These phenotypes in the mouse model are remarkably similar to those seen in humans with FXS.

    “These phenotypes in the mouse model are remarkably similar to those seen in humans with FXS (Castrén et al., 2003; Ethridge et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017).”

    From The Perineuronal ‘Safety’ Net? Perineuronal Net Abnormalities in Neurological Disorders (2018) · cites this paper as Castrén et al., 2003

  • Reduced N1 habituation in Fmr1 KO mice resembles human FXS observations, providing an analogous functional sensory outcome measure in mice and humans (Castren et al., 2003; Van der Molen et al., 2012; Schneider et al., 2013).

    “The reduced habituation of N1 amplitude in Fmr1 KO mice is similar to observations in humans with FXS providing, for the first time, an analogous functional sensory outcome measure in mice and humans (Castren et al., 2003; Van der Molen et al., 2012; Schneider et al., 2013).”

    From Matrix metalloproteinase-9 deletion rescues auditory evoked potential habituation deficit in a mouse model of Fragile X Syndrome (2016) · cites this paper as Castren et al., 2003

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lehman, D. and Skrandies, W. Segmentation of EEG potential fields. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1980, 38: 27–32.
  2. Miller, L.J., McIntosh, D.N., McGrath, J., Shyu, V., Lampe, M., Taylor, A.K., Tassone, F., Neitzel, K., Stackhouse, T. and Hagerman, R.J. Electrodermal responses to sensory stimuli in individuals with fragile X syndrome: a preliminary report. Am. J. Med. Genet., 1999, 83: 268–279. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Castrén, M., Pääkkönen, A., Tarkka, I. M., Ryynänen, M., & Partanen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Kuopio University Hospital (FI)
  • Finnish Brain Research and Rehabilitation Center Neuron (FI)
  • Oulu University Hospital (FI)
ORCID
Venue
Brain Topography
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2003-03
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
165-171
ISSN
  • 0896-0267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6792
DOI
10.1023/a:1022606200636
OpenAlex
W2293680727
Cited by
123
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Brain Topography (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Williams Syndrome Research
Keywords
fragile X syndrome, auditory N1, auditory event-related potentials, auditory processing, N2 component, habituation, sensory sensitivity, children
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Brain Mapping, Child, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Fragile X Syndrome, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Scalp, Case-Control Studies

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