|
|
|
|
|
 |
Search published articles |
 |
|
Showing 1 results for Nasli Esfahani
Parisa Jalilzadeh Afshari, Ghassem Mohamadkhani, Nematollah Rouhbakhsh, Shohreh Jalaie, Ensieh Nasli Esfahani,
Volume 22, Issue 2 (7-2013)
Abstract
Background and Aim: Diabetes mellitus is a common disorder and causes a variety of central nervous system complications such as cognitive deficits. P300 auditory event related potential application is a well established neurophysiological approach in the assessment of cognitive performance. In this study, we compared the results of this application in patients with insulin-dependent (type I) diabetics mellitus and normal individuals.
Methods: In this non-interventional study, auditory P300 was measured in oddball paradigm by using two tone burst stimuli (1000 and 2000 Hz) on 25 patients with type I diabetics mellitus with the mean age of 28.76 years and 25 age-, education- and sex-matched healthy controls with the mean age of 29.68 years. The participants were enrolled by probable and category random sampling style.
Results: The mean P300 latency of the patients with type I diabetes mellitus was significantly prolonged compared with that of normal controls at all electrode sites and in both genders (p<0.001). The mean P300 amplitude of these patients was significantly lower compared with that of normal controls at all electrode sites and in both genders (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Significant prolongation in P300 latency of the patients with type I diabetes mellitus shows that auditory information processing and information categorizing are slower in them. Significant reduction in P300 amplitude of the patients with type I diabetes mellitus demonstrates that working memory in these patients cannot recognize new events and update its context in accordance with them.
|
|
|
|
|
| This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly. |
|
|
|
|
