当前位置：
X-MOL 学术
›
Eur. J. Neurosci.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your
feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Do visual and auditory stimulus‐specific response modulation reflect different mechanisms of neocortical plasticity?
European Journal of Neuroscience ( IF 2.7 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-08 , DOI: 10.1111/ejn.14964 Trine Waage Rygvold 1 , Christoffer Hatlestad‐Hall 1, 2 , Torbjørn Elvsåshagen 2 , Torgeir Moberget 1, 2 , Stein Andersson 1
European Journal of Neuroscience ( IF 2.7 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-08 , DOI: 10.1111/ejn.14964 Trine Waage Rygvold 1 , Christoffer Hatlestad‐Hall 1, 2 , Torbjørn Elvsåshagen 2 , Torgeir Moberget 1, 2 , Stein Andersson 1
Affiliation
|
Stimulus response modulation (SRM) of sensory evoked potentials represents a promising method as a non‐invasive index of long‐term potentiation (LTP)‐like synaptic plasticity in the human sensory cortices. As of today, however, no consensus exists regarding which experimental parameters elicit the most robust SRM response. The aim of the current study was twofold; firstly, we aimed to replicate former studies demonstrating visual SRM in healthy adults. Second, we integrated visual and auditory stimuli within the same SRM recording session to assay potential cross‐modal associations. Such an association between modalities would strengthen the assumption that the SRM effect reflects common mechanisms underlying synaptic plasticity rather than reflecting modality‐specific phenomena. A replication of previous findings showing robust potentiation of the visual evoked potential was evident, supporting the majority of previous work using similar paradigms, lending further support to the notion that high‐frequent visual stimulation is a viable probe into LTP‐like synaptic plasticity in the human visual cortex. The auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) did not, however, fully replicate previous work, though a significant increase of temporally later AEP components was found. In contrast to our hypothesis, there were no significant within‐subject cross‐modality correlations between the visual and auditory SRM. This lack of significant association might suggest that auditory and visual SRM depend on different mechanisms, and that further SRM studies on non‐invasive LTP‐like synaptic plasticity should focus on optimizing paradigms within the visual modality.
中文翻译：
视觉和听觉刺激特异性反应调节是否反映了新皮层可塑性的不同机制？
感觉诱发电位的刺激响应调制（SRM）代表一种有前途的方法，可作为人类感觉皮质中长期增强（LTP）样突触可塑性的非侵入性指标。但是，到目前为止，关于哪个实验参数引起最可靠的SRM响应尚无共识。当前研究的目的是双重的。首先，我们旨在复制以前在健康成年人中显示视觉SRM的研究。其次，我们在同一SRM记录会话中整合了视觉和听觉刺激，以分析潜在的跨模式关联。模态之间的这种联系将加强以下假设：SRM效应反映了突触可塑性背后的常见机制，而不是模态特定现象。很明显，以前的发现重复显示了视觉诱发电位的强大增强作用，支持了以前使用相似范例进行的大多数工作，进一步支持了频繁的视觉刺激是对LTP样突触可塑性的可行探索的观点。人类的视觉皮层。听觉诱发电位（AEPs）然而，虽然发现时间上较晚的AEP成分明显增加，但并不能完全复制以前的工作。与我们的假设相反，视觉和听觉SRM之间没有显着的受试者内部交叉模态相关性。这种缺乏重要关联的现象可能表明听觉和视觉SRM依赖于不同的机制，
更新日期：2020-09-08
中文翻译：
视觉和听觉刺激特异性反应调节是否反映了新皮层可塑性的不同机制？
感觉诱发电位的刺激响应调制（SRM）代表一种有前途的方法，可作为人类感觉皮质中长期增强（LTP）样突触可塑性的非侵入性指标。但是，到目前为止，关于哪个实验参数引起最可靠的SRM响应尚无共识。当前研究的目的是双重的。首先，我们旨在复制以前在健康成年人中显示视觉SRM的研究。其次，我们在同一SRM记录会话中整合了视觉和听觉刺激，以分析潜在的跨模式关联。模态之间的这种联系将加强以下假设：SRM效应反映了突触可塑性背后的常见机制，而不是模态特定现象。很明显，以前的发现重复显示了视觉诱发电位的强大增强作用，支持了以前使用相似范例进行的大多数工作，进一步支持了频繁的视觉刺激是对LTP样突触可塑性的可行探索的观点。人类的视觉皮层。听觉诱发电位（AEPs）然而，虽然发现时间上较晚的AEP成分明显增加，但并不能完全复制以前的工作。与我们的假设相反，视觉和听觉SRM之间没有显着的受试者内部交叉模态相关性。这种缺乏重要关联的现象可能表明听觉和视觉SRM依赖于不同的机制，
京公网安备 11010802027423号