Effects of Button Pressing and Mental Counting on N100, N200, and P300 of Auditory-Event-Related Potential Recording

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the difference in the effects of button pressing and mental counting on N100, N200, and P300 in auditory event-related potential recording when target and nontarget tones are presented in an oddball paradigm. MATERIALS and METHODS: The subjects were 56 young male adults whose average age was 22.0±2 years. In this study of auditory event-related potential, 2 KHz and 1 KHz tone bursts were used as the target and nontarget stimuli, respectively. The subjects were instructed to press a button with their right thumb when the target stimuli were presented in the first session and with the left thumb in the second session, and to mentally count in the third session. RESULTS: In first and second sessions, the appearance percentages of P300, N200, and N100 in response to the target stimuli were 90%, 82%, and 98%, respectively. In the third session, the appearance percentages of P300, N200, and N100 in response to the target stimuli were 30%, 40%, and 94%, respectively. The differences in the peak latency and amplitude of P300 between button pressing and mental counting were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Button pressing can elicit an appearance percentage of auditory event-related potential threefold that of mental counting. N200 and P300 could reflect psychological effects but N100 could not.

[1]  K. Kaga,et al.  Middle-latency auditory-evoked magnetic fields in patients with auditory cortex lesions. , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[2]  L. Butcher,et al.  Cat ‘P300’ and cholinergic septohippocampal neurons: depth recordings, lesions, and choline acetyltransferase immunohistochemistry , 1992, Neuroscience Research.

[3]  J P Rosenfeld,et al.  Parietal P3 response as an indicator of stimulus categorization: increased P3 amplitude to categorically deviant target and nontarget stimuli. , 1990, Psychophysiology.

[4]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  A W Gaillard,et al.  Cognition and Event‐Related Potentials , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[6]  E. Donchin.  Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[7]  J. Rohrbaugh,et al.  Endogenous potentials generated in the human hippocampal formation and amygdala by infrequent events. , 1980, Science.

[8]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. , 1978, Acta psychologica.

[9]  E. Donchin,et al.  On the independence of the CNV and the P300 components of the human averaged evoked potential. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  N. Squires,et al.  Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Electrical Signs of Selective Attention in the Human Brain , 1973, Science.

[12]  E R John,et al.  Information Delivery and the Sensory Evoked Potential , 1967, Science.

[13]  R T Knight,et al.  Anatomic bases of event-related potentials and their relationship to novelty detection in humans. , 1998, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[14]  L. Butcher,et al.  'Cat P300' disappears after septal lesions. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.