↓ Skip to main content

Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning?
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly L. Tremblay, Bernhard Ross, Kayo Inoue, Katrina McClannahan, Gregory Collet

Abstract

Even though auditory training exercises for humans have been shown to improve certain perceptual skills of individuals with and without hearing loss, there is a lack of knowledge pertaining to which aspects of training are responsible for the perceptual gains, and which aspects of perception are changed. To better define how auditory training impacts brain and behavior, electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) have been used to determine the time course and coincidence of cortical modulations associated with different types of training. Here we focus on P1-N1-P2 auditory evoked responses (AEP), as there are consistent reports of gains in P2 amplitude following various types of auditory training experiences; including music and speech-sound training. The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the auditory evoked P2 response is a biomarker of learning. To do this, we taught native English speakers to identify a new pre-voiced temporal cue that is not used phonemically in the English language so that coinciding changes in evoked neural activity could be characterized. To differentiate possible effects of repeated stimulus exposure and a button-pushing task from learning itself, we examined modulations in brain activity in a group of participants who learned to identify the pre-voicing contrast and compared it to participants, matched in time, and stimulus exposure, that did not. The main finding was that the amplitude of the P2 auditory evoked response increased across repeated EEG sessions for all groups, regardless of any change in perceptual performance. What's more, these effects are retained for months. Changes in P2 amplitude were attributed to changes in neural activity associated with the acquisition process and not the learned outcome itself. A further finding was the expression of a late negativity (LN) wave 600-900 ms post-stimulus onset, post-training exclusively for the group that learned to identify the pre-voiced contrast.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Spain 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 198 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 20%
Researcher 40 19%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 29 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 44 21%
Psychology 40 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 10%
Linguistics 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 47 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#6,961,098
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#526
of 1,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,708
of 319,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.