Next Article in Journal
Cranial Ultrasound Abnormalities in Small for Gestational Age or Growth-Restricted Infants Born over 32 Weeks Gestation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Tiapride and Topiramate on Tic Severity and Behavioral/Emotional Problems in Children with Tourette Syndrome: A Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Stress Reduction Effects during Block-Tapping Task of Jaw in Healthy Participants: Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) Measurements of Prefrontal Cortex Activity
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Aetiology of Tourette Syndrome and Chronic Tic Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Case-Control Studies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/brainsci12121712
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

P3b Amplitude and Latency in Tic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

by
Yue Yang
1,
Hua Yang
1,
Yao Deng
1,
Tao Yu
1 and
Rong Luo
1,2,*
1
Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2
Key Laboratory of Obstetric & Gynecologic and Pediatric Diseases and Birth Defects of Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(12), 1712; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121712
Submission received: 18 July 2022 / Revised: 14 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 December 2022 / Published: 14 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights in Neurobiology and Genetics of Tourette Syndrome)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
P3b is an event-related potential (ERP) that may be abnormal in patients with tic disorders (TD), but evidence has been inconsistent. Given the possible association between P3b and TD and the need for biomarkers for TD, the primary objective of this meta-analysis was to characterize P3b in patients with TD in comparison to healthy controls (HCs). Methods: By searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Medline, and Google Scholar, we identified studies that compared P3b between TD patients and HCs. The amplitude and latency of P3b were then analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the influence of different experimental factors on P3b indices. Result: Overall, 19 articles involving 388 cases and 414 controls were evaluated. There were no significant abnormalities in P3b amplitude and latency in TD patients. The P3b amplitude of the TD patients was significantly decreased during the oddball task, and the P3b amplitude of the adult TD patients was also significantly decreased. Conclusion: TD patients may have an abnormal P3b compared to HCs under specified conditions.

1. Introduction

Tic disorder (TD) is a group of neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders characterized by involuntary unrhythmic and stereotyped movements and/or vocalizations. TD is common in children and adolescents and can be divided into Tourette syndrome (TS), persistent (chronic) movement disorders, and transient TDs [1]. TD is often associated with various comorbidities, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [2] and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) [3]. Tics and comorbidities can lead to dysfunction and reduced quality of life by affecting emotional states (e.g., anxiety or depression), sleep quality, and causing subjective discomfort (e.g., pain or injury); they may even lead to persistent social problems (e.g., bullying or isolation) [4,5].
Using brain imaging techniques, researchers found that the circuit-based neural mechanisms underlying TS were due to a combination of hyperactivated motor pathways and reduced activation in the control portions of the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical (CSTC) circuit. This means that communication between the basal ganglia and the motor cortex is impaired [6]. Some studies have also found hyperactivity in the supplementary motor area (SMA) in TD patients and that the SMA is largely involved in the generation of tics and sensory urges [7]. With advances in neuroelectrophysiology, an increasing number of researchers have recently applied neuroelectrophysiological techniques to study the neurodynamics of motor and cognitive processes in patients with TD. Electroencephalogram (EEG) measurement is a low-cost, non-invasive method for measuring brain activity. The simplicity and millisecond resolution of brain activity, combined with standardized analytical techniques, can be used to understand physiological function and reflect pathological changes. Event-related potential (ERP) is extracted from EEG, which noninvasively records neural activity in the brain in real time [8]. ERP is an objective factor used to study information processing and cognitive brain functions, such as attention, learning, memory, and decision-making, characterized by their positive or negative polarity, latency, and high temporal resolution [8,9].
Some biological traits of TD patients have been identified, and these traits have revealed the biological mechanisms of TD to some extent [10,11,12,13]. Importantly, P300 has been suggested to be a potential electrophysiological endophenotype in psychiatry [14]. Sutton et al. first reported that an evoked potential component peaked at approximately 300 ms and called this P300 [15]. Subsequent research revealed that P300 is related to the shift and distribution of attention and salience of stimulus [15]. Scalp topography evidence indicates that P300 was produced in the parietal, frontal, and central gyrus, as well as the anterior cingulate cortex [16]. The appearance of the P300 is thought to reflect the allocation of cognitive resources to a task [17]. It is influenced, in part, by context updating in working memory [18] as well as stimulus evaluation and categorization [19,20]. Research into the exact nature of the cognitive processes behind P300 has led to several theories [21]. According to the context-updating theory, the P300 component indexes brain activities underlying the revision of the mental representation induced by incoming stimuli [22]. According to the context-closure hypothesis, P300-eliciting stimuli are the events that closed a “context,” that is, P300 is associated with a deactivation process [23]. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that individual differences in the P300 values obtained from a simple stimulus discrimination task provide a reliable indication of individual differences in neural electrical processing power and speed.
P300 is typically divided into two sub-components: P3a and P3b. Of these, P3a was first observed in a tri-stimulus oddball task. In this task, a rare non-target stimulus elicits a positive deflection over the front and central electrodes of subjects. P3a is thought to reflect early attention processes, such as subjects shifting the focus of their attention to new or unexpected stimuli [22]. Another subcomponent of the P300 family is P3b. In the classic oddball task, P3b responds to the target stimulus with an increase in amplitude. P3b is thought to reflect stimulus evaluation and context updating in working memory [18]. More specifically, an increase in P3b amplitude is considered to be an indicator of the attention-driven comparison process between a new event differing from a previous event still maintained in working memory, with rarer events generating larger P3b amplitudes [22]. Furthermore, P3b latency is thought to reflect the processing speed related to stimulus classification and evaluation, suggesting its role in bridging perceptual and response processing [24].
Several previous studies have investigated P3b in patients with TD and yielded inconsistent results. Lange et al. [25] found a larger cue-locked parietal P3b amplitude during a computerized Wisconsin card sorting task in TS patients than in healthy controls (HCs), indicating enhanced proactive cognitive control in TS patients. However, other studies have found that the P3b component of patients with TS has a lower amplitude than those of healthy children in oddball tasks [26,27] tasks, reflecting impairments in attention and working memory in TS patients. Regarding latency, one study found no significant differences in the latency of P3b between normal participants and TS patients [26]. However, the P3b was delayed in a Stroop Color-Word Test [28] and figure conjunction paradigm [29], which the author interpreted as evidence of a stronger attentional effort by the TS patients to obtain behavioral results similar to control subjects in easy attentional tasks. There are several potential reasons for the different results among P300 studies on TD patients. In addition to paradigms, different experimental designs can affect the results. For example, subjects’ age [30] and modality (visual vs. auditory) [31], have been demonstrated in healthy subjects. However, the exact impact of the above-mentioned factors on TD participants requires further analysis. Moreover, the small sample size of some studies may lead to unreliable experimental results.
Given the points above, especially considering that some studies lacked sufficient statistical power due to the limited sample size, we conducted a meta-analysis aimed to assess the latency and amplitude of P3b in patients with TD. Moreover, subgroup analyses were conducted to test whether the experiment type or other relevant factors can significantly influence the results. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that both the latency and amplitude of P3b would be smaller in TD patients than HCs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search

To ensure methodological rigor, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [32] guidelines. Common biomedical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched from their inception to 10 October 2022. The following search terms were used: (“Tic Disorders” OR “Tourette Syndrome” OR TD OR TS) AND (“P300” OR “P3a” OR “P3b”) AND (“Event-Related Potentials”). These steps enabled the preliminary identification of relevant studies. The references of the included studies and related reviews were then searched to minimize the possibility of missing potential source studies. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and studies with a score of ≥6 were eligible for the meta-analysis.

2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Only studies that met the following inclusion criteria were evaluated: (1) the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude and/or latency of the P3b waveforms were reported (if actual numbers were not reported in the studies, the results were extracted from figure reports); (2) studies were published as research papers in English; (3) cross-sectional studies compared patients with TD and HCs; (4) when multiple studies from a particular research group reported a duplicate sample, the study with the most data available was selected; and (5) participants were diagnosed with TD using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (III, III-TR, IV, IV-TR and 5) or International Classification of Disease 10th edition criteria. Studies were excluded if (1) they were published as abstracts or reviews or if the full text was not available and (2) if the study was an animal experiment.

2.3. Data Extraction

The correct extraction of valid data is a key prerequisite for synthesizing and analyzing results. Two authors (Y.Y. and H.Y.) independently extracted information from all studies that met the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through a discussion between the two authors. The following variables were collected using a standardized electronic form: first author, year, sample size, age, diagnosis, diagnostic criteria, comorbidity, modality (visual vs. auditory), reaction method, paradigm, and electrode. All but nine studies measured P3b amplitudes at the midline parietal scalp (Pz) electrode to compute effect sizes. In two of these nine studies, recordings from the parietal region were used [27,28]; one study recorded the signals from the central region [33], and one study used the average of all electrode signals [34]. Two other studies, recordings from Cz [35,36], and one study used pooled posterior region recordings [37]. In addition, two studies recorded the average signals from P7 and P8 [38], P3, and P4 [39], respectively. The electrode positions are shown in Table 1. P3b amplitude and latency were averaged from the electrode data. The GetData Graph Digitizer was used to extract the results of figure reports when event results were not reported in a table or text form.

2.4. Data Analysis

Changes in the latency and amplitude of the P3b evoked potentials in the TD group and HCs were compared. Multiple repeated outcomes (i.e., results from different reaction methods) were combined into one independent outcome according to the formula described in Introduction to Meta-Analysis [40] to balance each study’s weight in the overall effect size calculation.
Table
Table 1. Studies on the P3b wave included in this meta-analysis.
Table 1. Studies on the P3b wave included in this meta-analysis.
AuthorYearSubjects (TD)Subjects (HC)Mean Age (TD)Mean Age (HC)DiagnosisDiagnostic CriteriaComorbidityModalityReaction MethodParadigmElectrode (Average)
Morand-Beaulieu S [41] 2022473511.0 ± 1.711.4 ± 1.6TSDSM-IV-TRnoneVisualKeypressGo/NoGo taskPz
Kloft L [36]2019122133.6 ± 8.830.9 ± 7.8TDDSM-IVAll patients with OCDVisualKeypressStop-signal taskCz
Petruo V [38]2019353912.97 ± 2.52Matched with the TSTSICD-103 patients with ADHD and 11 with OCD AuditoryKeypressGo/NoGo taskP7, P8
Sauvé G [34]2017121533 ± 931 ± 9TDDSM-IV-TRnoneVisualKeypressOddballAF4/FC4/CP6/AF2/FC2/CP2/F6/C6/P6/F4/C4/P4/F2/C2/P2
Lange F [25]2017232632.7 ± 11.1132.88 ± 11.23TSDSM-5unknownVisualKeypressWisconsin Card Sorting Test Pz
Morand-Beaulieu S [27]2016262738 ± 11.936 ± 13.0TS and chronic TDDSM-IV-TRnoneVisualKeypressA reinforcement-based learning and reversal taskCP1/CP2/CP5/CP6/P1/P2/P3/P4/P5/P6
Morand-Beaulieu S [27]2016262738 ± 11.936 ± 13.0TS and chronic TDDSM-IV-TRnoneVisualCountsA reinforcement-based learning and reversal taskCP1/CP2/CP5/CP6/P1/P2/P3/P4/P5/P6
Eichele H [33]201625359.87 ± 0.2410.04 ± 0.21TSDSM-IV14 patients with ADHDVisualKeypressA modified Eriksen-Flanker taskFC1/FC2/Cz/CP1/CP2
Shephard E [42]2016182013.18 ± 2.7813.03 ± 2.9TSunknownnoneVisualKeypressA reinforcement-based learning and reversal taskPz
Thibault G [28]2009152037 ± 840 ± 12TSDSM-IV-TRnoneVisualKeypressA stimulus–response compatibility paradigmP3, P4, CP3, CP4
Thibault G [37]2008141432 ± 1037 ± 13TSDSM-IV-TRnoneVisualCountsOddballCP3/TP7/P3/T5/O1/CP4/TP8/P4/T6/O2
Zhu Y [26]2006192011.169 ± 1.21411.459 ± 1.146TSDSM-IVnoneAuditoryKeypressOddballPz
Johannes S [43]2003101034.4 ± 15.333.7 ± 13.7TSDSM-IV2 patients with ADHD, 2 with OCD and 1 with both disorders. VisualKeypressStroop-paradigmPz
Rothenberger A [39]2000111112.1 ± 2.511.5 ± 2.1TDDSM-III-RAll patients with ADHDAuditoryKeypressAn auditory selective-attention taskP3, P4
Johannes S [29]1997121232.9Matched with the TSTSDSM III -RAll patients with OCD and 3 with ADHDVisualKeypressOddballPz
Oades RD [44]1996101211.7 ± 2.210.4 ± 1.3TSDSM III -RunknownAuditoryNoneOddballPz
Van Woerkom (1) [45]1994242427 ± 3.528 ± 3.3TSDSM III -RunknownAuditoryKeypressOddballPz
Van Woerkom (1) [45]1994242427 ± 3.528 ± 3.3TSDSM III -RunknownAuditoryNoneOddballPz
Van Woerkom (2) [45]1994291712.5 ± 1.5213.4 ± 1.35TSDSM III -RunknownAuditoryKeypressOddballPz
Van Woerkom (2) [45]1994291712.5 ± 1.5213.4 ± 1.35TSDSM III -RunknownAuditoryNoneOddballPz
Drake ME [35]199220208–2010–30TSDSM-IIIR10 patients with ADHD and 6 with OCDAuditoryKeypressOddballCz/A1/A2
Van Woerkom (1) [46]198820202728TSDSM-IIIunknownAuditoryKeypressOddballPz
Van Woerkom (2) [46]198820202728TSDSM-IIIunknownAuditoryCountsOddballPz
van de Wetering [47]19856162823TSDSM-IIIunknownAuditoryCountsOddballPz
ADHD: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; TS: Tourette Syndrome; TD: Tic Disorder; OCD: obsessive-compulsive disorder.
To measure the effect of the mean difference between the groups and as a statistical analysis method, a random effects model was used. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity, with a higher I2 statistic indicating greater heterogeneity. Slight heterogeneity was defined as I2 ≤30%; moderate heterogeneity, I2 > 30%, ≤50%; and I2 > 50%, severe heterogeneity. Effect sizes were calculated for the P3b amplitude or latency by dividing the mean differences by the weighted and pooled standard deviations. Pooled effect sizes (ES: Hedges’ g) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, and forest maps were created. The direction of the effect sizes indicated whether the P3b latency or amplitude difference between the patients and HCs was prolonged/higher (positive) or shortened/lower (negative). When the pooled effect size was equal to 0 or the 95% CI range covered 0, the difference in the result was not statistically significant. Sensitivity analyses was performed to determine the sources of heterogeneity by evaluating the effect of the successive removal of individual studies on the pooled effect size. A publication bias was assessed for using the funnel plot and Egger’s regression tests.
Subgroup analyses were examined separately for age (adult and child), paradigm (oddball and other), modality (visual and auditory), comorbidity (none, yes and unknown), and reaction method (keypress, counts, and none). Age group was defined based on the range of participants’ age and classified into two groups: all participants were <18 who were classified into an <18 group; participants ≥18 who were classified into a ≥18 group; one study that recruited subjects aged under and over 18 was excluded. Paradigm was defined as oddball and other. Oddball contained the classic oddball and the three-stimuli oddball tasks and all modified paradigms based on these two and all other different kinds of paradigms were classified into another paradigm category. If a study had two repeated measured outcomes of the subgroup classification factors, they were treated as independent samples so that they were not combined (i.e., keypress and counts). All statistical meta-analyses were performed using Stata version 16.0. All tests were two-sided, and the α test level was 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Individual Studies

A total of 283 studies were identified; of these, 163 studies were excluded from the preliminary evaluation. Among the remaining 120 studies, another 77 were further excluded after a detailed assessment and 25 studies were excluded because they (1) did not report data for P3b or data could not be obtained from the figures, (2) lacked a suitable control group, and (3) included duplicate data sources. One study was added after searching the references of the above articles. Eventually, 19 studies involving 388 cases and 414 controls were included (Figure 1). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the included studies.

3.2. Meta-Analyses

Compared to HCs, TD participants did not show significant abnormalities, with an overall standardized mean difference of −0.12 (CI = −0.59, 0.34, p = 0.605) for the random effects model (Figure 2). There were significant differences between studies (I2 = 89.4%, p < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis showed that the overall standardized mean difference did not change significantly after the elimination of each study (Figure 3), indicating that the results of this meta-analysis were stable. Qualitatively (by visual inspection), the funnel plot (Figure 4) was symmetric. Quantitatively, Egger’s regression tests provided no evidence of substantial publication bias for the meta-analysis of P3b amplitude (p = 0.746).
In the latency analysis, TD participants did not show significant abnormalities compared with the HCs, with an overall standardized mean difference of −0.10 (CI = −0.24, 0.04, p = 0.149) for the random effects model (Figure 5). No differences in heterogeneity were observed between the studies (I2 = 0%, p = 0.981). The sensitivity analysis indicated that the results of this meta-analysis were stable (Figure 6). There was no significant publication bias in the studies according to the funnel plots (Figure 7) and Egger’s test (p = 0.395).
The synthetic result showed lower P3b amplitude than HCs in subgroups of oddball paradigms (Figure 8) and adults (Figure 9). No significant effect size of P3b was found in subgroups of child, other paradigms, modality, comorbidity, or reaction method. However, severe heterogeneity was found in all of the subgroups of P3b (Table 2).
No subgroup analyses of P3b latency showed statistical significance between the TD and HCs groups. There was little heterogeneity in all the subgroups of P3b amplitude latency.

4. Discussion

Only a few neurophysiological biomarkers have been identified in patients with TD. This meta-analysis found that the P3b amplitude and latency showed no significant abnormalities between TS patients and HCs. The results were stable without any publication bias. However, lower P3b amplitude in TS patients was found during the oddball paradigm and in adults. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to examine P3b in patients with TD. The findings provide an important summary of the neurophysiological evidence in patients with TD.
Although P3b can be induced by a variety of different conditions, their mechanisms are similar and closely related to each other. P3b latency is related to information processing, while P3b amplitude is related to the amount of information the stimulus can deliver and the number of attentional resources devoted to the task [48,49]. According to the synthsis of studies under different experimental conditions, no difference in P3b amplitude was found between the TD group and the HC group. However, the heterogeneity of this synthesis result was very high. A variety of factors, such as paradigm, target probability, time window, response method, modality, and electrode position can affect the P3b waveform [22], making the P3b results incompatible between studies. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret whether the overall results are due to currently unknown pathophysiological mechanisms of the TD, differences in processing task requirements [50], or both.
Due to the significant heterogeneity of the combined effect size, subgroup analyses were performed to investigate root causes and test for differences between each subgroup. In the paradigm subgroup, the P3b amplitude of TD patients was significantly lower than HCs during the oddball task, which was inconsistent with the overall results, and other paradigms cannot distinguish TD from HCs groups. Moreover, the P3b amplitude was lower in adult TS patients, and this was not observed in pediatric TS patients. In general, P3 amplitude decreases when fewer attentional and cognitively related neurons are aroused. However, P3 amplitude also decreases for difficult tasks, because more mental resources are devoted to improving task performance rather than information cognitive processing [51].
Previous studies on TD report an intact P3b amplitude during a Go/No-Go paradigm [38,52], a STOP stimuli paradigm [53], an oddball paradigm [36], and a modified Eriksen-Flanker task [54]. Of these paradigms, the oddball paradigm is one of the classical ERP experimental paradigms. The oddball paradigm aims to alter the pre-programmed execution of a response by introducing a rare stimulus (with a low probability of occurrence) into a sequence of frequent stimuli. When a rare stimulus appears, the subject needs to exhibit a different type of response, which will activate the prefrontal cortex to suppress the pre-programmed response [55]. This may be a dysfunction of TD patients who already experience problems with countermanding actions when they need to suppress and reset plans [34]. In addition, the perceptual sensitivity of different paradigms to TS and normal controls differs [50], which may be the reason for the inconsistency between the results of the typical subgroup analysis and the overall results.
A previous meta-analysis showed that in healthy subjects, the amplitude of P300 increased before the age of 16 and then gradually decreased, while the timing for latency differed, with 22 years as the change age point [21]. Therefore, an age subgroup analysis was performed and revealed that adult patients with TD showed lower P3b amplitude than HCs, whereas child patients with TD showed no difference in P3b amplitude compared to HCs. This finding may suggest that reduction in the P3b amplitude may be a feature of adult TD patients. The findings of reduced P3b amplitude in TD patients showing a reduction of event-related oscillations in adult TD patients suggested that adults with TD may have a reduction in working memory updating processes. A study in adult TD patients showed decreased gray matter in the anterior cingulate gyrus and the sensorimotor areas and reductions in white matter in the right cingulate gyrus [56]. The P300 reduction has been related to impairments in the gray matter of these regions [57]. Another study reported that P300 amplitude was related to white matter volumes in the prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction [58]. Thus, the decrease in P300 may reflect a decrease in white or gray matter in the prefrontal cortex and sensorimotor areas of the brain, which in turn affects tic symptoms.
The findings can be explained on the neurochemical level. Glutamate (Glu) is one of the most abundant neurotransmitters in the brain, and glutamatergic neurotransmitters play a key role in brain function [59]. Several studies have supported glutamatergic system dysfunction within CSTC pathways in adult TS patients [60,61]. A proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) study found that the increased glutamate neurotransmission at the frontal synapses in healthy brains was associated with greater EEG responses [62]. Given these findings, our results suggest that the reduced P3b amplitude in adult TD patients was associated with impaired glutamatergic function. Furthermore, previous drug studies have reported that GABAergic (γ-aminobutyric acid) receptors were involved in regulating P3b amplitude in healthy adults using a visual oddball task [63]. However, in children and adolescents, the concentration of GABA and glutamate was significantly higher in TS groups [64,65]. Therefore, this dysregulation of GABA and glutamate may further explain our findings and support the theory that P3b may be a trait marker of adult TD patients and merit further research to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the etiology of TD.
Furthermore, reduction in P3b amplitude has been reported in a variety of psychological conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder [66], ADHD [67], and OCD [37], suggesting that P3b amplitude reduction is not specific to TD patients and that further investigation into differences in ERP between neuropsychiatric conditions is warranted. Notably, using the oddball task, Thibault et al. [37] found that patients with TS showed higher amplitudes of P3b components than HCs, as opposed to the findings of this study. However, the patients with TS+OCD showed lower amplitudes compared to HCs. The authors inferred that the results might be due to a high comorbidity rate between TS and OCD. In other words, most ERP studies either included TS participants suffering from mild to severe OCD or provided no information about the presence of such symptoms in their sample. Therefore, a comorbidity subgroup analysis was performed, and we did not find significant differences between TD patients with no comorbidity and HCs.
P3b latency is reportedly shorter in TS children with OCD [35] or ADHD [26]. P3b is involved in complex and multilevel cognitive functions, such as working memory and the allocation of attention resources. Therefore, the researchers attributed this finding to the need for greater efforts to update working memory in TS children, and this thus occupies more attentional resources. However, in this study, we found that the P3b latency of TD patients was not significantly abnormal compared with that of HCs. This was consistent with the results of Zhu et al. [26], who found that P3b latency did not seem to be widely affected in TS children without comorbidities. The reason for this result may be that multiple influencing factors result in insignificant changes in P3b in TD children, which is not easy to observe [68].
This study has some limitations that affect the interpretation of our findings. First, some of the included studies involved subjects with other mental comorbidities, some subjects were treated with medication, the treatment cycle was different, medication types were different, and the data were insufficient. Thus, it was difficult to conduct a subgroup analysis of the influence of patient characteristics on P3b. Second, in several studies we only obtained the data for averaged electrode sites, which reduced the site-specificity of the P3b results. Third, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were used in this meta-analysis to exclude poor-quality studies. However, unpublished articles may be excluded because they lack significant results. Thus, as with other meta-analyses, there is the possibility of publication bias, in which negative studies were not published, increasing the effect size of the pooled published studies. In addition, the search scope of this study was limited to English databases only, but eligible studies in other languages may also exist.

5. Conclusions

There were no significant abnormalities in P3b amplitude and latency in TD patients. The P3b amplitude of the TD patients was significantly decreased during the oddball task, and the P3b amplitude of the adult TD patients was also significantly decreased. This meta-analysis provides insights for researchers interested in the P3b effect in TD. Considering the heterogeneity of patient characteristics and study methods used in the included studies, the limitations of previous studies should be overcome in further research. For example, patients with TD should be classified according to TD subtype and course of treatment and be evaluated using a uniform paradigm. In addition, it is necessary to elucidate the neural basis and neurobiological significance of P3b in future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, Y.Y. and H.Y.; software, H.Y. and Y.D.; validation, Y.Y., T.Y. and R.L.; data curation and writing-original draft preparation, Y.Y. and H.Y.; writing-review and editing, Y.D. and T.Y.; project administration and funding acquisition, R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2021YFC1005305) and a Grant from the Sichuan Provincial Department of Science and Technology Regional Innovation Cooperation Project (No. 2020YFQ0021).

Data Availability Statement

Data from this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Association, A.P. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®); American Psychiatric Pub: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Freeman, R.D. Tourette Syndrome International Database Consortium. Tic disorders and ADHD: Answers from a world-wide clinical dataset on Tourette syndrome. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2007, 16, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yu, D.; Mathews, C.A.; Scharf, J.M.; Neale, B.M.; Davis, L.K.; Gamazon, E.R.; Derks, E.M.; Evans, P.; Edlund, C.K.; Crane, J.; et al. Cross-disorder genome-wide analyses suggest a complex genetic relationship between Tourette’s syndrome and OCD. Am. J. Psychiatry 2015, 172, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Evans, J.; Seri, S.; Cavanna, A.E. The effects of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome and other chronic tic disorders on quality of life across the lifespan: A systematic review. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2016, 25, 939–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Eapen, V.; Cavanna, A.E.; Robertson, M.M. Comorbidities, Social Impact, and Quality of Life in Tourette Syndrome. Front. Psychiatry 2016, 7, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Wang, Z.; Maia, T.V.; Marsh, R.; Colibazzi, T.; Gerber, A.; Peterson, B.S. The neural circuits that generate tics in Tourette’s syndrome. Am. J. Psychiatry 2011, 168, 1326–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hampson, M.; Tokoglu, F.; King, R.A.; Constable, R.T.; Leckman, J.F. Brain areas coactivating with motor cortex during chronic motor tics and intentional movements. Biol. Psychiatry 2009, 65, 594–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kayser, J.; Tenke, C.E. Issues and considerations for using the scalp surface Laplacian in EEG/ERP research: A tutorial review. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2015, 97, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Patel, S.H.; Azzam, P.N. Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the event-related potential. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2005, 2, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Yu, D.; Sul, J.H.; Tsetsos, F.; Nawaz, M.S.; Huang, A.Y.; Zelaya, I.; Illmann, C.; Osiecki, L.; Darrow, S.M.; Hirschtritt, M.E.; et al. Interrogating the Genetic Determinants of Tourette’s Syndrome and Other Tic Disorders Through Genome-Wide Association Studies. Am. J. Psychiatry 2019, 176, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Qi, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, Z.; Xiong, L. Genetic Studies of Tic Disorders and Tourette Syndrome. Methods Mol. Biol. 2019, 2011, 547–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eddy, C.M.; Cavanna, A.E.; Rickards, H.E.; Hansen, P.C. Temporo-parietal dysfunction in Tourette syndrome: Insights from an fMRI study of Theory of Mind. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2016, 81, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Wen, H.; Zhang, Y.; Kang, H.; Wang, X.; Li, W.; He, H.; Peng, Y. Altered Spontaneous Brain Activity in Children with Early Tourette Syndrome: A Resting-state fMRI Study. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Bodatsch, M.; Brockhaus-Dumke, A.; Klosterkotter, J.; Ruhrmann, S. Forecasting psychosis by event-related potentials-systematic review and specific meta-analysis. Biol. Psychiatry 2015, 77, 951–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sutton, S.; Braren, M.; Zubin, J.; John, E. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 1965, 150, 1187–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Li, Y.; Wang, L.-Q.; Hu, Y. Localizing P300 generators in high-density event-related potential with fMRI. Med. Sci. Monit. 2009, 15, MT47–MT53. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Kato, Y.; Endo, H.; Kizuka, T. Mental fatigue and impaired response processes: Event-related brain potentials in a Go/NoGo task. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2009, 72, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Donchin, E.; Coles, M.G. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behav. Brain Sci. 1988, 11, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kutas, M.; McCarthy, G.; Donchin, E. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science 1977, 197, 792–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Verleger, R. On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology 1997, 34, 131–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van Dinteren, R.; Arns, M.; Jongsma, M.L.; Kessels, R.P. P300 development across the lifespan: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Polich, J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007, 118, 2128–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Verleger, R. Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3. Behav. Brain Sci. 1988, 11, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Verleger, R.; Jaśkowski, P.; Wascher, E. Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. J. Psychophysiol. 2005, 19, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lange, F.; Seer, C.; Muller-Vahl, K.; Kopp, B. Cognitive flexibility and its electrophysiological correlates in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2017, 27, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhu, Y.; Liu, P.Z.; Leung, K.M.; Su, L.Y.; Wu, D.X.; Zhou, M. P300 differences exist between Tourette’s syndrome with and without attention deficiency and hyperactivity disorder in children. World J. Biol. Psychiatry 2006, 7, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Morand-Beaulieu, S.; O’Connor, K.P.; Richard, M.; Sauve, G.; Leclerc, J.B.; Blanchet, P.J.; Lavoie, M.E. The Impact of a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy on Event-Related Potentials in Patients with Tic Disorders or Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviors. Front. Psychiatry 2016, 7, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Thibault, G.; O’Connor, K.P.; Stip, E.; Lavoie, M.E. Electrophysiological manifestations of stimulus evaluation, response inhibition and motor processing in Tourette syndrome patients. Psychiatry Res. 2009, 167, 202–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Johannes, S.; Weber, A.; Müller-Vahl, K.; Kolbe, H.; Dengler, R.; Münte, T. Event-related brain potentials show changed attentional mechanisms in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Eur. J. Neurol. 1997, 4, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bohlhalter, S.; Goldfine, A.; Matteson, S.; Garraux, G.; Hanakawa, T.; Kansaku, K.; Wurzman, R.; Hallett, M. Neural correlates of tic generation in Tourette syndrome: An event-related functional MRI study. Brain 2006, 129, 2029–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rosenfeld, J.P.; Ward, A.; Frigo, V.; Drapekin, J.; Labkovsky, E. Evidence suggesting superiority of visual (verbal) vs. auditory test presentation modality in the P300-based, Complex Trial Protocol for concealed autobiographical memory detection. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2015, 96, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Eichele, H.; Eichele, T.; Bjelland, I.; Hovik, M.F.; Sorensen, L.; van Wageningen, H.; Worren, M.K.; Hugdahl, K.; Plessen, K.J. Performance Monitoring in Medication-Naive Children with Tourette Syndrome. Front. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Sauve, G.; Morand-Beaulieu, S.; O’Connor, K.P.; Blanchet, P.J.; Lavoie, M.E. P300 Source Localization Contrasts in Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviors and Tic Disorders. Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Drake, M.E., Jr.; Hietter, S.A.; Padamadan, H.; Bogner, J.E.; Andrews, J.M.; Weate, S. Auditory evoked potentials in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Clin. Electroencephalogr. 1992, 23, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kloft, L.; Riesel, A.; Kathmann, N. Inhibition-related differences between tic-free and tic-related obsessive-compulsive disorder: Evidence from the N2 and P3. Exp. Brain Res. 2019, 237, 3449–3459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Thibault, G.; Felezeu, M.; O’Connor, K.P.; Todorov, C.; Stip, E.; Lavoie, M.E. Influence of comorbid obsessive-compulsive symptoms on brain event-related potentials in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2008, 32, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Petruo, V.; Bodmer, B.; Brandt, V.C.; Baumung, L.; Roessner, V.; Munchau, A.; Beste, C. Altered perception-action binding modulates inhibitory control in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2019, 60, 953–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Rothenberger, A.; Banaschewski, T.; Heinrich, H.; Moll, G.H.; Schmidt, M.H.; van’t Klooster, B. Comorbidity in ADHD-children: Effects of coexisting conduct disorder or tic disorder on event-related brain potentials in an auditory selective-attention task. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2000, 250, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.; Rothstein, H. Introduction to Meta-Analysis; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. Morand-Beaulieu, S.; Smith, S.D.; Ibrahim, K.; Wu, J.; Leckman, J.F.; Crowley, M.J.; Sukhodolsky, D.G. Electrophysiological signatures of inhibitory control in children with Tourette syndrome and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Cortex 2022, 147, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shephard, E.; Jackson, G.M.; Groom, M.J. Electrophysiological correlates of reinforcement learning in young people with Tourette syndrome with and without co-occurring ADHD symptoms. Int. J. Dev. Neurosci. 2016, 51, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Johannes, S.; Wieringa, B.M.; Nager, W.; Rada, D.; Müller-Vahl, K.R.; Emrich, H.M.; Dengler, R.; Münte, T.F.; Dietrich, D. Tourette Syndrome and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Event-related brain potentials show similar mechansims of frontal inhibition but dissimilar target evaluation processes. Behav. Neurol. 2003, 14, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Oades, R.D.; Dittmann-Balcar, A.; Schepker, R.; Eggers, C.; Zerbin, D. Auditory event-related potentials (ERPs) and mismatch negativity (MMN) in healthy children and those with attention-deficit or tourette/tic symptoms. Biol. Psychol. 1996, 43, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Van Woerkom, T.; Roos, R.; Van Dijk, J. Altered attentional processing of background stimuli in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: A study in auditory event-related potentials evoked in an oddball paradigm. Acta Neurol. Scand. 1994, 90, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Van Woerkom, T.C.; Fortgens, C.; Rompel-Martens, C.M.; Van de Wetering, B.J. Auditory event-related potentials in adult patients with Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome in the oddball paradigm. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1988, 71, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Van de Watering, B.; Martens, C.; Fortgens, C.; Slaets, J.; Van Woerkom, T. Late components of the auditory evoked potentials in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 1985, 87, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Borja, A.; Ponde, M. P300: Avaliação do potencial evocado cognitivo em crianças com e sem TDAH. Rev. Ciênc. Méd. Biol. 2009, 8, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Earls, H.A.; Curran, T.; Mittal, V. A Meta-analytic Review of Auditory Event-Related Potential Components as Endophenotypes for Schizophrenia: Perspectives From First-Degree Relatives. Schizophr. Bull. 2016, 42, 1504–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Oades, R.D. Differential measures of ‘sustained attention’in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity or tic disorders: Relations to monoamine metabolism. Psychiat. Res. 2000, 93, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Polich, J. Task difficulty, probability, and inter-stimulus interval as determinants of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroen. Clin. Neuro. 1987, 68, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shephard, E.; Jackson, G.M.; Groom, M.J. The effects of co-occurring ADHD symptoms on electrophysiological correlates of cognitive control in young people with Tourette syndrome. J. Neuropsychol. 2016, 10, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brandt, V.C.; Stock, A.K.; Munchau, A.; Beste, C. Evidence for enhanced multi-component behaviour in Tourette syndrome—An EEG study. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Eichele, H.; Eichele, T.; Marquardt, L.; Adolfsdottir, S.; Hugdahl, K.; Sorensen, L.; Plessen, K.J. Development of Performance and ERPs in a Flanker Task in Children and Adolescents with Tourette Syndrome-A Follow-Up Study. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Huettel, S.A.; McCarthy, G. What is odd in the oddball task? Prefrontal cortex is activated by dynamic changes in response strategy. Neuropsychologia 2004, 42, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Muller-Vahl, K.R.; Kaufmann, J.; Grosskreutz, J.; Dengler, R.; Emrich, H.M.; Peschel, T. Prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex abnormalities in Tourette Syndrome: Evidence from voxel-based morphometry and magnetization transfer imaging. BMC Neurosci. 2009, 10, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Ford, J.M.; Sullivan, E.V.; Marsh, L.; White, P.M.; Lim, K.O.; Pfefferbaum, A. The relationship between P300 amplitude and regional gray matter volumes depends upon the attentional system engaged. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1994, 90, 214–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Fusar-Poli, P.; Crossley, N.; Woolley, J.; Carletti, F.; Perez-Iglesias, R.; Broome, M.; Johns, L.; Tabraham, P.; Bramon, E.; McGuire, P. White matter alterations related to P300 abnormalities in individuals at high risk for psychosis: An MRI-EEG study. J. Psychiatry Neurosci. 2011, 36, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Helms, H.C.C.; Nielsen, C.U.; Waagepetersen, H.S.; Brodin, B. Glutamate Transporters in the Blood-Brain Barrier. Adv. Neurobiol. 2017, 16, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Kalanithi, P.S.; Zheng, W.; Kataoka, Y.; DiFiglia, M.; Grantz, H.; Saper, C.B.; Schwartz, M.L.; Leckman, J.F.; Vaccarino, F.M. Altered parvalbumin-positive neuron distribution in basal ganglia of individuals with Tourette syndrome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 13307–13312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Anderson, G.M.; Pollak, E.S.; Chatterjee, D.; Leckman, J.F.; Riddle, M.A.; Cohen, D.J. Postomortem analysis of subcortical monoamines and amino acids in Tourette syndrome. Adv. Neurol. 1992, 58, 123–133. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hall, M.H.; Jensen, J.E.; Du, F.; Smoller, J.W.; O’Connor, L.; Spencer, K.M.; Ongur, D. Frontal P3 event-related potential is related to brain glutamine/glutamate ratio measured In Vivo. Neuroimage 2015, 111, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Watson, T.D.; Petrakis, I.L.; Edgecombe, J.; Perrino, A.; Krystal, J.H.; Mathalon, D.H. Modulation of the cortical processing of novel and target stimuli by drugs affecting glutamate and GABA neurotransmission. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009, 12, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Draper, A.; Stephenson, M.C.; Jackson, G.M.; Pepes, S.; Morgan, P.S.; Morris, P.G.; Jackson, S.R. Increased GABA contributes to enhanced control over motor excitability in Tourette syndrome. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 2343–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Mahone, E.M.; Puts, N.A.; Edden, R.A.E.; Ryan, M.; Singer, H.S. GABA and glutamate in children with Tourette syndrome: A (1) H MR spectroscopy study at 7T. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 2018, 273, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Cui, T.; Wang, P.P.; Liu, S.; Zhang, X. P300 amplitude and latency in autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2017, 26, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Janssen, T.W.P.; Gelade, K.; van Mourik, R.; Maras, A.; Oosterlaan, J. An ERP source imaging study of the oddball task in children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2016, 127, 1351–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Morand-Beaulieu, S.; Lavoie, M.E. Cognitive and motor event-related potentials in Tourette syndrome and tic disorders: A systematic review. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2019, 130, 1041–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brainsci 12 01712 g001 550
Figure 1. Study identification flowchart.
Figure 1. Study identification flowchart.
Brainsci 12 01712 g001
Brainsci 12 01712 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest map of P3b amplitude of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 2. Forest map of P3b amplitude of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Brainsci 12 01712 g002
Brainsci 12 01712 g003 550
Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of P3b amplitude of TD patients and HCs. CI confidence interval.
Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of P3b amplitude of TD patients and HCs. CI confidence interval.
Brainsci 12 01712 g003
Brainsci 12 01712 g004 550
Figure 4. Meta-analysis on the funnel map of P3b amplitude of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference.
Figure 4. Meta-analysis on the funnel map of P3b amplitude of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference.
Brainsci 12 01712 g004
Brainsci 12 01712 g005 550
Figure 5. Meta-analysis on the forest map of P3b latency of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 5. Meta-analysis on the forest map of P3b latency of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Brainsci 12 01712 g005
Brainsci 12 01712 g006 550
Figure 6. Sensitivity analysis of P3b latency of TD patients and HCs. CI: confidence interval.
Figure 6. Sensitivity analysis of P3b latency of TD patients and HCs. CI: confidence interval.
Brainsci 12 01712 g006
Brainsci 12 01712 g007 550
Figure 7. Funnel map of P3b latency of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference.
Figure 7. Funnel map of P3b latency of TD patients and HCs. SMD: Standard Mean Difference.
Brainsci 12 01712 g007
Brainsci 12 01712 g008 550
Figure 8. Subgroup analysis of P3b amplitude in TD patients and HCs (oddball paradigm and other paradigms). SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 8. Subgroup analysis of P3b amplitude in TD patients and HCs (oddball paradigm and other paradigms). SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Brainsci 12 01712 g008
Brainsci 12 01712 g009 550
Figure 9. Subgroup analysis of P3b amplitude in TD patients and HCs (adults and children). SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 9. Subgroup analysis of P3b amplitude in TD patients and HCs (adults and children). SMD: Standard Mean Difference; CI: confidence interval.
Brainsci 12 01712 g009
Table
Table 2. P3b subgroup analysis.
Table 2. P3b subgroup analysis.
Amplitude Latency
kpI2(%)SMD (95%CI)kpI2 (%)SMD (95%CI)
Age group
Adult110.00077.10%−0.46 (−0.91, −0.01)110.8480.00%−0.12 (−0.32, 0.09)
Child80.00092.30%0.60 (−0.21, 1.41)90.9610.00%−0.04 (−0.24, 0.16)
Paradigm
Oddball100.00077.20%−0.56 (−1.04, −0.08)110.9490.00%−0.05 (−0.25, 0.15)
Other90.00089.00%0.50 (−0.14, 1.14)90.7880.00%−0.14 (−0.34, 0.06)
Modality
Visual110.00090.90%0.17 (−0.51, 0.84)110.8520.00%−0.08 (−0.27, 0.11)
Auditory80.00085.80%−0.26 (−0.91, 0.39)90.9030.00%−0.12 (−0.33, 0.10)
Comorbidity
None70.00083.70%−0.16 (−0.75, 0.43)70.8780.00%−0.04 (−0.27, 0.18)
Yes60.00093.40%0.38 (−0.8, 1.55)70.7280.00%−0.09 (−0.33, 0.15)
Unknown60.00088.60%−0.20 (−1.06, 0.65)60.7850.00%−0.18 (−0.45, 0.09)
Reaction method
Keypress160.00090.50%−0.16 (−0.69, 0.37)170.9060.00%−0.07 (−0.22, 0.07)
Counts40.00084.60%−0.46 (−1.39, 0.47)40.9350.00%−0.11 (−0.44, 0.22)
None30.00093.10%0.10 (−1.48, 1.68)30.4930.00%−0.17 (−0.54, 0.2)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, Y.; Yang, H.; Deng, Y.; Yu, T.; Luo, R. P3b Amplitude and Latency in Tic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 1712. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121712

AMA Style

Yang Y, Yang H, Deng Y, Yu T, Luo R. P3b Amplitude and Latency in Tic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(12):1712. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121712

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Yue, Hua Yang, Yao Deng, Tao Yu, and Rong Luo. 2022. "P3b Amplitude and Latency in Tic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis" Brain Sciences 12, no. 12: 1712. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12121712

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop