PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C R Lines

Publications and source records attributed to C R Lines.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Rofecoxib: no effect on Alzheimer's disease in a 1-year, randomized, blinded, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and may be mediated via the cyclo-oxygenase-2 enzyme. This study sought to evaluate the effect of rofecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that selectively inhibits cyclo-oxygenase-2, in slowing the progression of dementia in patients with established AD. METHODS: A double-blinded, multicenter trial was conducted in which 692 patients with mild or moderate AD aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg rofecoxib or placebo daily for 12 months. The key efficacy measures were mean change from baseline at month 12 on the cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) and score on the Clinician's Interview Based Impression of Change with caregiver input (CIBIC+). RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one patients (70%) completed assessments and remained on treatment at 12 months. No significant differences between treatments were found on the mean change from baseline error score for the ADAS-cog (rofecoxib = 4.84; placebo = 5.44; difference = -0.60) or mean score on the CIBIC+ (rofecoxib = 4.90; placebo = 4.87; difference = 0.03) over 12 months. This result persisted after adjusting for severity of dementia at baseline, presence of the APOE-epsilon4 allele, and donepezil use. Secondary analyses did not reveal any significant differences on any other measures. CONCLUSION: The failure of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibition to slow the progression of AD may indicate either that the disease process is too advanced to modify in patients with established dementia or that cyclo-oxygenase-2 does not play a significant role in the pathogenesis of the disorder.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Comparison of rizatriptan and other triptans on stringent measures of efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral rizatriptan 10 mg with oral doses of sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan on stringent outcome measures. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from five randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trials in which oral rizatriptan was directly compared with oral sumatriptan 100 mg (n = 772), 50 mg (n = 1116), 25 mg (n = 1183), naratriptan 2.5 mg (n = 413), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (n = 580) for the acute treatment of a moderate or severe migraine attack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients pain-free at 2 hours, symptom-free at 2 hours (no pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, vomiting, or functional disability), 24-hour sustained pain-free (no headache at 2 hours, no recurrence, and no additional antimigraine medications for 24 hours). RESULTS: More patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg were pain-free at 2 hours than were patients taking sumatriptan 100 mg (40% vs 33%, p = 0.019), sumatriptan 50 mg (40% vs 35%, p = 0.009), sumatriptan 25 mg (38% vs 27%, p < 0.001), naratriptan 2.5 mg (45% vs 21%, p < 0.001), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (43% vs 36%, p = 0.041). More patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg were symptom-free at 2 hours than were patients taking sumatriptan 100 mg (31% vs 22%, p = 0.002), sumatriptan 50 mg (33% vs 28%, p = 0.003), sumatriptan 25 mg (33% vs 24%, p < 0.001), naratriptan 2.5 mg (30% vs 11%, p < 0.001), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (31% vs 24%, p = 0.042). More patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg had a 24-hour sustained pain-free response than did patients taking sumatriptan 100 mg (27% vs 23%, p = 0.112), sumatriptan 50 mg (30% vs 26%, p = 0.015), sumatriptan 25 mg (27% vs 20%, p = 0.005), naratriptan 2.5 mg (29% vs 17%, p = 0.004), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (32% vs 24%, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Oral rizatriptan 10 mg was more effective than oral sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan on stringent outcome measures of pain-free response at 2 hours, symptom-free response at 2 hours, and 24-hour sustained pain-free response.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Review article: the gastrointestinal safety profile of rofecoxib, a highly selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, in humans.

Highly selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2, such as rofecoxib, are hypothesized to have an improved gastrointestinal tolerability and safety profile compared with non-selective NSAIDs, which inhibit cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 non-selectively. This paper reviews data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies which investigated the effects of rofecoxib and NSAIDs on the human gastrointestinal tract. In healthy subjects, rofecoxib 25 mg and 50 mg daily had no effect on gastric mucosal prostaglandin synthesis, whilst naproxen 1000 mg daily caused a 70% reduction. Therapeutic doses of rofecoxib 25 mg and 50 mg daily did not increase intestinal permeability or faecal blood loss in healthy subjects, whereas increases in both measures were seen with indometacin 150 mg or ibuprofen 2400 mg. A supra-therapeutic dose of rofecoxib (250 mg) given daily for 7 days did not induce an increase in gastroduodenal erosions in healthy subjects, whilst increased numbers of erosions were found in subjects given ibuprofen 2400 mg or aspirin 2600 mg. The endoscopic findings in healthy subjects were confirmed in two 6-month clinical studies involving 1516 patients with osteoarthritis; the incidences of ulcers following rofecoxib 25 mg or 50 mg daily were similar to placebo and less than ibuprofen 2400 mg. The advantage of rofecoxib over NSAIDs in these studies appears to translate into clinically relevant benefits; an analysis of 5435 patients with osteoarthritis found a significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal perforations, ulcers and bleeds in patients taking rofecoxib compared with patients taking NSAIDs. Overall, the findings from these studies suggest that, as a result of cyclooxygenase-1 sparing, rofecoxib is significantly less gastrotoxic than non-selective NSAIDs, and may not differ from placebo.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed2001

Meta-analysis of rizatriptan efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Data from seven randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III clinical trials were analysed to further evaluate the efficacy of rizatriptan 10 mg (n = 2068) in comparison with placebo (n = 1260) and rizatriptan 5 mg (n = 1486) for the acute treatment of a migraine attack. Migraine was diagnosed according to International Headache Society criteria. Headache severity, associated migraine symptoms and functional disability were measured immediately before dosing and at 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 h. Headache recurrence (return of moderate or severe headache after an initial response) was also recorded. In addition to conventional pain relief (reduction of moderate or severe headache to mild or none) and pain free measures, the analysis looked at the elimination of associated migraine symptoms and disability in patients who had symptoms or disability at baseline. Maintenance of pain relief or pain-free status over 24 h was also analysed. At 2 h, rizatriptan 10 mg was significantly more effective than placebo for pain relief (71% vs. 38%, P < 0.001), and for elimination of pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia and functional disability. The benefit was maintained over 24 h; 37% of patients on rizatriptan 10 mg had sustained pain relief vs. 18% for placebo (P < 0.001). Rizatriptan 10 mg was also more effective than rizatriptan 5 mg, with a significant superiority at 2 h on all measures except for elimination of nausea. The benefit was maintained over 24 h; 38% of patients on rizatriptan 10 mg had sustained pain relief vs. 32% for rizatriptan 5 mg (P = 0.001).

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Effect of rizatriptan and other triptans on the nausea symptom of migraine: a post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of oral rizatriptan, sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan on the relief and emergence of nausea during a migraine attack. METHODS: Data from five randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which oral rizatriptan 10 mg was directly compared with oral sumatriptan 100 mg (N = 772), 50 mg (N = 1168), 25 mg (N = 1180), naratriptan 2.5 mg (N = 406), or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (N = 571) for the acute treatment of a migraine attack were retrospectively analyzed. Migraine was diagnosed according to International Headache Society criteria. Presence or absence of nausea was recorded at baseline and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 hours after dosing. The end points analyzed were relief of nausea in those who had it at baseline and emergence of nausea in those who were free of it at baseline. Treatments were compared using odds ratios estimated from logistic regression models at 2 hours, and averaged odds ratios for the first 2 hours posttreatment. RESULTS: Approximately 60% of patients in each treatment group had nausea at baseline. In those patients with nausea at baseline, significantly more patients treated with rizatriptan 10 mg were free of nausea at 2 hours compared with sumatriptan 100 mg (66% versus 58%, P =.043), sumatriptan 50 mg (68% versus 57%, P =.010), sumatriptan 25 mg (68% versus 59%, P =.017), and naratriptan 2.5 mg (59% versus 45%, P =.014). Averaging over the four posttreatment time points in the first 2 hours, significantly more patients treated with rizatriptan 10 mg were free of nausea compared with sumatriptan 100 mg (P =.004), sumatriptan 50 mg (P =.001), and naratriptan 2.5 mg (P =.015). No significant differences in nausea relief were seen between rizatriptan 10 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, either at 2 hours (65% versus 61%, P =.210) or over the first 2 hours (P =.781). Rates of treatment-emergent nausea at 2 hours ranged from 11% to 18% with placebo, from 5% to 13% with rizatriptan 10 mg, and from 10% to 20% with other comparator triptans. CONCLUSIONS: Oral rizatriptan 10 mg was more effective than oral sumatriptan and naratriptan at eliminating nausea within 2 hours in patients who had it at baseline. Rates of emergent nausea in patients who were free of it at baseline were low, and no consistent differences were observed between active treatments.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Rizatriptan: pharmacological differences from sumatriptan and clinical results.

Rizatriptan and sumatriptan are selective 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists for theacute treatment of migraine. For oral formulations, the time to maximum plasma concentration is reached earlier with rizatriptan than with sumatriptan (1 h versus 2-2.5 h) and rizatriptan has greater bioavailability than sumatriptan (45% versus 15%). These pharmacological advantages appear to translate into a faster onset of action and a better overall response for oral rizatriptan versus oral sumatriptan. The two drugs have been directly compared in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate or severe migraine attacks. Rizatriptan 10 mg was generally superior to sumatriptan on a measure of time-to-pain-relief within 2 h, where pain relief was defined as a reduction of pain to mild or none (odds ratio for rizatriptan versus sumatriptan 100 mg = 1.21; odds ratios for rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg = 1.14 and 1.10 in two studies). Rizatriptan 10 mg was also superior to sumatriptan on the International Headache Society recommended endpoint of the percentage of patients pain free at 2 h (40% for rizatriptan 10 mg, 33% for sumatriptan 100 mg, and 35% for sumatriptan 50 mg). Further advantages for rizatriptan were seen on stringent outcome measures of the percentage of patients who were completely free of all symptoms at 2 h, patient satisfaction with medication at 2 h, and 24-h sustained pain-free response. 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists are contraindicated in patients with coronary artery disease because of their potential to cause vasoconstriction. In clinical trials which excluded such patients, rizatriptan and sumatriptan were both well-tolerated. The most common side-effects on both drugs occurred in <10% of patients and consisted of dizziness, drowsiness, and asthenia/fatigue. The adverse events were usually mild or moderate in severity and short-lasting.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2000

Within-patient consistency of response of rizatriptan for treating migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the within-patient consistency of response for rizatriptan, a 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was performed on data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Four hundred seventy-three patients with migraine diagnosed according to the criteria of the International Headache Society were randomly assigned to one of five sequence groups in which each patient was scheduled to treat four separate moderate or severe migraine attacks. Patients in four groups received 10 mg of rizatriptan for three of four attacks and placebo for the remaining attack; patients in the fifth group received 10 mg of rizatriptan for all four attacks. Headache severity, functional disability, and associated migraine symptoms were measured immediately before dosing and at regular intervals up to 4 hours after the dose. The analysis was based on efficacy at 2 hours after dosing, the last time point before escape medications were allowed. The percentages of patients who responded in a specified number of attacks after treatment with rizatriptan were calculated. The analysis was descriptive, and no formal statistical testing was performed. RESULTS: Of the evaluable patients who treated three migraine attacks with 10 mg of rizatriptan (with an additional interspersed placebo-treated attack in most patients), 216 of 252 (86%) had pain relief (reduction of pain to mild or none), 122 of 252 (48%) were pain free, 211 of 250 (84%) had no nausea, 163 of 251 (65%) had no photophobia, 182 of 252 (72%) had no phonophobia, 136 of 249 (55%) had no functional disability, and 233 of 252 (92%) had no need for escape medications at 2 hours after dosing in at least two of three attacks. CONCLUSION: The response to 10 mg of oral rizatriptan within individual patients was consistent over three attacks on a range of measures.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Rizatriptan in the treatment of menstrual migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of oral rizatriptan 10 mg and 5 mg for treating menstrually associated migraine attacks. METHODS: Data from two large clinical trials with identical designs were included in a retrospective analysis. The studies were randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, incomplete block, two-period, crossover designs. Women with migraines were randomly assigned to one of five treatment sequences for the treatment of two migraine attacks. Only data from the first attack in women with migraines who were treated with rizatriptan or placebo were included in the analysis. A menstrually associated attack was defined as one that occurred within 3 days before or after the onset of the last menstrual period. RESULTS: In the subgroup of 335 women with menstrually associated migraine, rizatriptan was effective compared with placebo. At 2 hours after dosing, 68% of 139 women taking rizatriptan 10 mg and 70% of 115 women taking rizatriptan 5 mg with a menstrually associated migraine had pain relief compared with 44% of 81 patients taking placebo (P <.05). In all women, rizatriptan was as effective in treating menstrual as well as nonmenstrual migraine: 68% of 139 patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg with a menstrually associated migraine had pain relief at 2 hours after dosing compared with 69% of 393 patients with nonmenstrually associated attacks (test of menstrual association = nonsignificant; the analysis had 80% power to detect a difference of six percentage points between groups). Similar results were found for rizatriptan 5 mg (menstrual = 70%, nonmenstrual = 66%; not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan is effective in the treatment of menstrually associated migraine attacks.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1999

Rizatriptan in the treatment of migraine.

Rizatriptan is a selective 5-hydroxytriptamine1B/1D receptor agonist that was launched in 1998 for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Based on data from 6 large clinical trials in patients > or =18 years of age in whom migraine was diagnosed according to International Headache Society criteria, the marketed 10-mg and 5-mg oral doses of rizatriptan are effective in relieving headache pain and associated migraine symptoms. The 10-mg dose is more effective than the 5-mg dose. At 2 hours after dosing, up to 77% of patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg had pain relief compared with 37% of those taking placebo, up to 44% were completely pain free compared with 7% of those taking placebo, and up to 77% were free of nausea compared with 58% of those taking placebo (P < 0.05 for all 3 comparisons). Both doses of rizatriptan are generally well tolerated. In placebo-controlled studies involving treatment of a single migraine attack, the most common side effects (incidence > or =2%) occurred in <10% of patients, typically were transitory (2 to 3 hours), and were mild or moderate. Rizatriptan is an effective and well-tolerated acute treatment for migraine.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1996

Rizatriptan vs sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. A placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. Dutch/US Rizatriptan Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Rizatriptan (MK-462) is a new 5-hydroxytryptamine1D (serotonin1D; 5-HT1D) receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine that has improved pharmacokinetic properties compared with sumatriptan succinate. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of 10-, 20-, and 40-mg doses of oral rizatriptan vs a 100-mg dose of oral sumatriptan succinate and placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial. SETTING: Ten US and 4 Dutch investigator centers. PATIENTS: Patients who had migraine with or without aura (N = 449). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of patients whose conditions improved from severe or moderate headache immediately before dosing to mild or no headache at 2 hours after drug administration (ie, headache relief). RESULTS: The proportion of patients with headache relief was 18% for placebo; 46% for sumatriptan; and 52% for 10-mg, 56% for 20-mg, and 67% for 40-mg rizatriptan. All differences with placebo were statistically significant (P < .001), and 40-mg rizatriptan was superior to sumatriptan (P = .01). The proportion of patients who became free of pain at 2 hours was 3% for the placebo-treated group; 22% for the sumatriptan-treated group; and 26%, 35%, and 47% for the group of patients who took the 10-, 20-, and 40-mg doses of rizatriptan, respectively (all differences with placebo, P < .005; 40-mg rizatripan vs sumatriptan, P = .001). The recurrence of headache within 24 hours was found to be equal across all treatment groups-approximately 40%. Adverse events (most commonly short-lasting mild or moderate dizziness and drowsiness) occurred more frequently after a 40-mg dose of rizatriptan was given than after the other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The antimigraine effect of 10- and 20-mg rizatriptan was superior to placebo, and comparable with that of 100-mg sumatriptan succinate; the efficacy of 40-mg rizatriptan was superior to that of both placebo and 100-mg sumatriptan succinate, although it was associated with a high frequency of adverse events.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Memory and attention in patients with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type and in normal elderly subjects.

Previous studies have shown that cholinergic blockade in normal subjects induces impairment of vigilance as well as memory deficits. In the present investigation we have examined the validity of this pharmacological model of dementia by administering a battery of cognitive tasks to patients with mild and moderate senile dementia of the Alzheimer type and to age-matched controls. In contrast to volunteers receiving scopolamine all the mildly demented patients, and half of those moderately affected, performed normally on tests of vigilance whilst exhibiting the expected memory deficits. These data suggest that the mechanism of memory loss in Alzheimer's disease may differ from that found in scopolamine-induced amnesia.

Aged↗
PubMed1989

Scopolamine and benzodiazepine models of dementia: cross-reversals by Ro 15-1788 and physostigmine.

The muscarinic antagonist scopolamine and the benzodiazepine lorazepam both produce transient impairments in memory and attention in normal volunteers. These impairments can be reversed by appropriate agents such as the cholinesterase inhibitor physostigmine in the case of scopolamine or the benzodiazepine antagonist Ro 15-1788 in the case of lorazepam. In this paper we investigated the pharmacological specificity of these reversals by examining the interactions of scopolamine and Ro 15-1788 and of lorazepam and physostigmine. There was no evidence that the effects of scopolamine and lorazepam on cognitive function could be attenuated by Ro 15-1788 and physostigmine, respectively. The results are discussed in terms of pharmacological models of Alzheimer's disease.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed1987

Modulation of visual event-related potentials by spatial and non-spatial visual selective attention.

Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in two experiments involving selective visual processing. In Experiment 1, subjects attended to light flashes emanating from one visual field, in order to detect occasional slightly deviant "targets", while ignoring equiprobable stimuli from the opposite field. ERPs elicited by stimuli in an attended field were characterised by larger posteriorly distributed P120 and N170 components, and a larger anteriorly distributed N145 component. In addition, these ERPs were, in comparison to those elicited by unattended stimuli, more negative-going in the latency region of approx. 200-400 msec. This late effect had a marked fronto-central distribution. In Experiment 2 subjects attended to either horizontal or vertical bars, displayed equiprobably in the same spatial location. No enhancement of early components was observed as a function of attention but, as in Experiment 1, a late, sustained, fronto-centrally distributed negative shift was observed in ERPs elicited by "attended" compared to "unattended" stimuli. It was concluded that the enhancement of P120 (P1) observed in Experiment 1 reflects the engagement of attentional mechanisms specific to the selection of stimuli on the basis of spatial cues. The later sustained negative shift seen in both experiments was considered to reflect a feature of within-channel processing common to both spatial and non-spatial selective tasks.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

Reaction times to lateralized visual stimuli in callosal agenesis: stimulus and response factors.

A young acallosal man was intensively tested in a standard simple reaction time (RT) paradigm using briefly-presented lateralized spots for light. In Experiment 1, findings on previous acallosal patients of a large disadvantage for crossed (e.g. right hemifield-left hand) as against uncrossed (e.g. left hemifield-left hand) RTs were replicated. This crossed-uncrossed difference (CUD), as in previous work, turned out to be smaller in a bimanual response task than in the conventional unimanual task. Experiment 2 was a factorial study of unimanual RTs in which (a) stimulus intensity and (b) spatial S-R compatibility, were varied. As in a previously tested patient, decreased intensity resulted in a greatly increased CUD. S-R compatibility on the other hand had no effect on CUD. The results are interpreted as favouring a role for visual commissural neurones in the acallosal CUD, and as evidence against a spatial compatibility hypothesis.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

Further investigation of visual evoked potentials elicited by lateralized stimuli: effects of stimulus eccentricity and reference site.

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to small lateralized flashes were recorded from the parietal midline, homotopic lateral central and occipital electrodes, and from left and right mastoid processes, all referred to a balanced non-cephalic reference. Two stimulus eccentricities, 4 degrees and 10 degrees, were employed, and a comparison made between the non-cephalic and linked mastoid references. P120 (measured at lateral occipital sites only) peaked earlier and was of smaller amplitude at the electrode contralateral to the visual field of stimulus exposure. N160 peaked earlier at central than occipital sites, was larger from electrodes over the contralateral hemisphere, and at the occipital sites only, peaked earlier in the electrode contralateral to the visual field of stimulus exposure. These effects were virtually unaffected by the eccentricity manipulation and it is concluded that light scatter across the visual midline is unlikely to be responsible for the observed pattern of ipsilateral-contralateral VEP asymmetries. The mastoids were found to detect significant stimulus-locked activity in the same latency range as the occipital N160 component. However, comparison of the non-cephalic and linked mastoid references revealed only non-specific effects, and no sign of any change in the pattern of ipsilateral-contralateral VEP asymmetries, or the magnitude of the associated latency differences. It is concluded that these effects may be of value in the study of callosal transfer.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

A deficit in ambient visual guidance following superior colliculus lesions in rats.

Rats were tested for their ability to locate a hidden platform in the Morris swimming pool in which extrapool cues are required to guide locomotion. At the end of each trial, the rats were either removed immediately or allowed to remain on the platform for 60 s. Bilateral lesions of the superior colliculus (SC), as in a previous experiment (Milner & Lines, 1983), were found to produce a severe deficit. Permitting the rats to stay on the platform did not significantly affect performance in either rats with SC lesions or sham-operated controls. The results indicated that the reduced orienting behavior on the platform observed in the rats with lesions in the previous experiment was not the cause of their navigational impairment. It is concluded that the impairment following SC lesions comes about during the swimming itself and therefore that it may be attributed to a disturbance of, or a failure to utilize, ambient vision.

Animals↗
PubMed1985

Visual evoked potentials to lateralised stimuli in two cases of callosal agenesis.

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to lateralised light flashes were recorded from two acallosal patients. In one patient, these recordings were made while he performed a choice-reaction time task, and in the other patient the VEPs were obtained during a simple reaction time task. In both cases the patient's VEPs from electrode sites contralateral to the visual field of stimulus delivery resembled those of controls. Their VEPs from ipsilateral sites were aberrant, however, in that while control subjects showed a smaller and slightly delayed ipsilateral N160 component, this was not discernible in the patients' data. It is concluded that the ipsilateral N160 relies for its generation on the transcallosal transfer of information processed initially by the contralateral hemisphere.

Adult↗