Largely unaffected auditory and visual sensory processing phenotypes in the evoked potentials of Fmr1 KO2 mice.
Saved in:
| Title: | Largely unaffected auditory and visual sensory processing phenotypes in the evoked potentials of Fmr1 KO2 mice. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kat, Renate (AUTHOR), Kas, Martien J. H. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | European Journal of Neuroscience. Oct2022, Vol. 56 Issue 8, p5260-5273. 14p. 1 Diagram, 4 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Sensorimotor integration, Auditory evoked response, Visual evoked response, Fragile X syndrome, Evoked potentials (Electrophysiology), Autism spectrum disorders, Visual evoked potentials, Auditory processing disorder |
| Abstract: | Sensory sensitivity symptoms are common in autism spectrum disorders and fragile X syndrome. Mainly in the auditory modality, disturbed processing has been found in both fragile X patients and the corresponding genetic mouse model, the Fmr1 knockout mouse. Here, we tried to replicate the auditory deficits and assess whether also visual processing is affected, using electroencephalography readouts under freely behaving conditions in the second‐generation Fmr1 knockout mice. No differences between wild‐type and knockout animals were found in single auditory and visual evoked potentials in response to pure sine tones and full‐field light flashes. Visual sensory gating was enhanced in the early but not the late components of the evoked potentials, but no changes were found in auditory sensory gating. The higher harmonics of the synchronisation response to flickering visual stimuli seemed to be reduced with 10, but not 20 or 40 Hz, stimulation. However, this effect was not reproduced in an independent second cohort of animals. No synchronisation differences were found in response to a chirp stimulus, of which the frequency steadily increased. Taken together, this study could not reproduce earlier reported increased amplitudes in auditory responses, nor could it convincingly show that synchronisation deficits found to be present in the auditory modality also existed in the visual modality. The discrepancies within this study as well as between various studies assessing sensory processing in the Fmr1 KO raise questions about the external validity of these phenotypes and warrant careful interpretation of these phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of European Journal of Neuroscience is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Sensory sensitivity symptoms are common in autism spectrum disorders and fragile X syndrome. Mainly in the auditory modality, disturbed processing has been found in both fragile X patients and the corresponding genetic mouse model, the Fmr1 knockout mouse. Here, we tried to replicate the auditory deficits and assess whether also visual processing is affected, using electroencephalography readouts under freely behaving conditions in the second‐generation Fmr1 knockout mice. No differences between wild‐type and knockout animals were found in single auditory and visual evoked potentials in response to pure sine tones and full‐field light flashes. Visual sensory gating was enhanced in the early but not the late components of the evoked potentials, but no changes were found in auditory sensory gating. The higher harmonics of the synchronisation response to flickering visual stimuli seemed to be reduced with 10, but not 20 or 40 Hz, stimulation. However, this effect was not reproduced in an independent second cohort of animals. No synchronisation differences were found in response to a chirp stimulus, of which the frequency steadily increased. Taken together, this study could not reproduce earlier reported increased amplitudes in auditory responses, nor could it convincingly show that synchronisation deficits found to be present in the auditory modality also existed in the visual modality. The discrepancies within this study as well as between various studies assessing sensory processing in the Fmr1 KO raise questions about the external validity of these phenotypes and warrant careful interpretation of these phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0953816X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ejn.15808 |
