P300 is an event-related potential, being explored as an objective tool to assess cognition. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of auditory and visual P300 in patients with TLE having unilateral HS using electroencephalography (EEG) and to study its correlation with cognition.
This is a cross-sectional case-control study, where P300 characteristics in thirty patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis with refractory epilepsy were compared with fifteen age-, gender-, and years of education-matched healthy controls (M: F-10:5, mean age-28 ± 4.76 years). Among patients, 15 belonged to the right HS group (M: F-9:6, age at onset-12.92 ± 10.22 years, duration of epilepsy-16.67 ± 9.38 years) and 15 to the left HS group (M: F-8:7, age at onset-10.62 ± 7.18 years, duration of epilepsy-15.53 ± 10.14 years). All subjects underwent EEG-based auditory and visual oddball tasks and cognitive assessment. The P300 latencies (in milliseconds) as well as amplitudes (in microvolts) were predicted in EEG and were correlated with cognitive scores. Source localization of P300 was performed with the CLARA algorithm.
The auditory P300 latencies in controls, right HS, and left HS were 323.93 ± 40.28, 351.06 ± 47.23, and 328.80 ± 36.03, respectively (p = 0.18) and its amplitudes were 2.3040 ± 1.46, 2.77 ± 1.19, and 2.68 ± 1.78, respectively (p = 0.48). Visual P300 latencies in controls, right HS, and left HS were 365.87 ± 47.37, 359.67 ± 64.45, and 376.00 ± 60.06, respectively (p = 0.51) and its amplitudes were 3.93 ± 2.28, 2.09 ± 1.45, and 3.56 ± 1.74, respectively (p = 0.014). Further, when compared to the control group the cognitive scores were lower in the patient group (p < 0.05).
In comparison to the controls, patients with right HS recorded lesser amplitude on visual P300 and lower scores on cognitive tests. P300 and cognitive parameters exhibited varied relationship. P300 could be a complementary objective tool to assess cognition in patients with TLE.

OBJECTIVE: Somatic hypervigilance describes a clinical presentation in which people report more, and more intense, bodily sensations than is usual. Most explanations of somatic hypervigilance implicate altered information processing, but strong empirical data are lacking. Attention and working memory are critical for information processing, and we aimed to evaluate brain activity during attention/working memory tasks in people with and without somatic hypervigilance.
METHODS: Data from 173 people with somatic hypervigilance and 173 controls matched for age, gender, handedness, and years of education were analyzed. Event-related potential (ERP) data, extracted from the continuous electroencephalograph recordings obtained during performance of the Auditory Oddball task, and the Two In A Row (TIAR) task, for N1, P2, N2, and P3, were used in the analysis. Between-group differences for P3 amplitude and N2 amplitude and latency were assessed with two-tailed independent t tests. Between-group differences for N1 and P2 amplitude and latency were assessed using mixed, repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with group and Group × Site factors. Linear regression analysis investigated the relationship between anxiety and depression and any outcomes of significance.
RESULTS: People with somatic hypervigilance showed smaller P3 amplitudes-Auditory Oddball task: t(285) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval, CI [3.48, 4.47], p = .026, d = 0.27; Two-In-A-Row (TIAR) task: t(334) = 2.23, 95% CI [2.20; 3.95], p = .021, d = 0.24-than case-matched controls. N2 amplitude was also smaller in people with somatic hypervigilance-TIAR task: t(318) = 2.58, 95% CI [0.33, 2.47], p = .010, d = 0.29-than in case-matched controls. Neither depression nor anxiety was significantly associated with any outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: People with somatic hypervigilance demonstrated an event-related potential response to attention/working memory tasks that is consistent with altered information processing.