Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32388645›Full record

ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2020

Pearls and pitfalls in brain functional analysis by event-related potentials: a narrative review by the Italian Psychophysiology and Cognitive Neuroscience Society on methodological limits and clinical reliability-part I.

Marina de Tommaso, Viviana Betti, Tommaso Bocci, Nadia Bolognini, Francesco Di Russo, Francesco Fattapposta, Raffaele Ferri, Sara Invitto, Giacomo Koch, Carlo Miniussi and 18 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Marina de TommasoApplied Neurophysiology and Pain Unit-AnpLab-University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Viviana BettiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso BocciDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Nadia BologniniDepartment of Psychology & NeuroMi, University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Francesco Di RussoDepartment of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Rome, Italy.
Francesco FattappostaDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Raffaele FerriOasi Research Institute -IRCCS, Troina, Italy.
Sara InvittoINSPIRE - Laboratory of Cognitive and Psychophysiological Olfactory Processes, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.
Giacomo KochIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia (Santa Lucia Foundation), Rome, Italy.
Carlo MiniussiCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences - CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.
Francesco PiccioneBrain Imaging and Neural Dynamics Research Group, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
Aldo RagazzoniUnit of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Fondazione PAS, Scandicci, Florence, Italy.
Ferdinando SartucciSection of Neurophysiopathology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Simone RossiDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience Siena Brain Investigation and Neuromodulation Lab (SI-BIN Lab), University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Giorgio ArcaraBrain Imaging and Neural Dynamics Research Group, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
Marika BerchicciDepartment of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Rome, Italy.
Valentina BiancoIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia (Santa Lucia Foundation), Rome, Italy.
Marianna DelussiApplied Neurophysiology and Pain Unit-AnpLab-University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Eleonora GentileApplied Neurophysiology and Pain Unit-AnpLab-University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Fabio GiovannelliSection of Psychology - Department of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug Research, Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Daniela MannarelliDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marco MarinoBrain Imaging and Neural Dynamics Research Group, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
Elena MussiniDepartment of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Rome, Italy.
Caterina PaulettiDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Maria Concetta PellicciariIRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia (Santa Lucia Foundation), Rome, Italy.
Alberto PisoniDepartment of Psychology & NeuroMi, University of Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Alberto RaggiUnit of Neurology, G.B. Morgagni - L. Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy.
Massimiliano ValerianiNeurology Ward Unit, Bambino Gesù Hospital, Rome, Italy. massimiliano.valeriani@opbg.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) are obtained from the electroencephalogram (EEG) or the magnetoencephalogram (MEG, event-related fields (ERF)), extracting the activity that is time-locked to an event. Despite the potential utility of ERP/ERF in cognitive domain, the clinical standardization of their use is presently undefined for most of procedures. The aim of the present review is to establish limits and reliability of ERP medical application, summarize main methodological issues, and present evidence of clinical application and future improvement. The present section of the review focuses on well-standardized ERP methods, including P300, Contingent Negative Variation (CNV), Mismatch Negativity (MMN), and N400, with a chapter dedicated to laser-evoked potentials (LEPs). One section is dedicated to proactive preparatory brain activity as the Bereitschaftspotential and the prefrontal negativity (BP and pN). The P300 and the MMN potentials have a limited but recognized role in the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and consciousness disorders. LEPs have a well-documented usefulness in the diagnosis of neuropathic pain, with low application in clinical assessment of psychophysiological basis of pain. The other ERP components mentioned here, though largely applied in normal and pathological cases and well standardized, are still confined to the research field. CNV, BP, and pN deserve to be largely tested in movement disorders, just to explain possible functional changes in motor preparation circuits subtending different clinical pictures and responses to treatments.

Indexed as

Cognitive NeuroscienceElectroencephalographyBrainEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansItalyMalePsychophysiologyReproducibility of ResultsBereitschaftspotentialClinical applicationContingent negative variationEvent-related potentialsLaser-evoked potentialsLimitsMismatch negativityN400Normative dataP300pNReliability

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.