Cited by 156Neuroscience and Music PerceptionHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Latency of the Auditory Evoked Neuromagnetic Field Components: Stimulus Dependence and Insights Toward Perception

Roberts, Timothy P.L., Ferrari, Paul, Stufflebeam, Steven M., Poeppel, David·2000·Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

This review will focus on investigations of the auditory evoked neuromagnetic field component, the M100, detectable in the magnetoencephalogram recorded during presentation of auditory stimuli, approximately 100 milliseconds after stimulus onset. In particular, the dependence of M100 latency on attributes of the stimulus, such as intensity, pitch and timbre will be discussed, along with evidence relating M100 latency observations to perceptual features of the stimuli. Comparison with investigation of the analogous electrical potential component, the N1, will be made. Parametric development of stimuli from pure tones through complex tones to speech elements will be made, allowing the influence of spectral pitch, virtual pitch and perceptual categorization to be delineated and suggesting implications for the role of such latency observations in the study of speech processing. The final section will deal with potential clinical applications offered by M100 latency measurements, as objective indices of normal and abnormal cortical processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004691-200003000-00002

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • The auditory M100 is a strong, reliable response occurring about 100 ms after sound onset.

    “The auditory M100 is a prominent and robust response, observed around 100 ms after auditory stimulus onset and has been a widely investigated auditory MEG response (for review see Roberts et al., 2000).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, T. P. L., Ferrari, P., Stufflebeam, S. M., & Poeppel, D.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Timothy P.L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology
Published
2000-03
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
114-129
ISSN
0736-0258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070379741
Cited by
156
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
M100, stimulus dependence, auditory perception, N1, pure tones, complex tones, speech processing, virtual pitch, perceptual categorization, cortical auditory processing, clinical application
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Atrophy, Basal Ganglia, Brain, Brain Diseases, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Phonetics, Psychophysics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sex Factors, Speech Perception, Temporal Lobe, Time Factors, Magnetoencephalography

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