Latency and amplitude of P300 using speech and non-speech stimuli - a normative study


  • Bhimraj B. Ramteke Department of ENT, Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
  • Sushil N. Meshram Department of ENT, Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India



Auditory evoked response, Event-related potentials, P300, Latency, Amplitude


Background: The P300 was among the first auditory response in a collection of events related or endogenous evoked responses. The P300 is related to cognition and use of knowledge about the environment.

Methods: The subjects (n=60) selected with an equal distribution of genders. P300 evoked potentials elicited by non-speech and speech stimuli is recorded.  

Results: There is a significant difference in latency of P300 for speech verses non-speech stimuli as well as there is a significant difference in the latency of P300 among males and females for speech versus non speech stimuli. No significant difference in amplitude of P300 for speech versus non-speech stimuli and for right versus left ears.

Conclusions: P300 latency is influenced by stimulus used and gender variation. The present study showed that the non-speech stimuli had lower latencies compared with speech stimuli. For the P300 amplitude values, the difference between groups were not significant.

Author Biographies

Bhimraj B. Ramteke, Department of ENT, Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India

Audiologist, department of ENT

Sushil N. Meshram, Department of ENT, Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India

Junior Resident, Department of ENT


Hall JW. Handbook of auditory evoked responses. Allyn & Bacon. 1992.

McPherson DL. Late Potentials of the Auditory System. San Diego, California: Singu Publish Gro Inc. 1996;1128-34.

Starr AR, Don MA. Brain potentials evoked by acoustic stimuli. Human event-related potentials: EEG handbo. 1988;3:97-157.

Walker L. Late auditory evoked potentials as electrophysiological indices of behavioral discrimination. East Carolina University; 2005.

Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Scien. 1965;150(3700):1187-8.

Gibson EJ. Principles of perceptual learning and development.

Baars BJ. Contrastive phenomenology: A thoroughly empirical approach to consciousness. The nature of consciousness: Phiolosophical controversies. 1997: 187-202.

Michalewski HJ, Rosenberg C, Starr A. Event-related potentials in dementia. Frontiers of clinical neuroscience. 1986;3:521-8.

Johnson Jr R. The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential: Review and synthesis. Advances in psychophysiology. 1988;3:69-137.

Kaga K, Kodera K, Hirota E, Tsuzuku T. P300 response to tones and speech sounds after cochlear implant: a case report. Laryngos. 1995;101(8):905-7.

Kaufman MJ, editor. Brain imaging in substance abuse: research, clinical, and forensic applications. Springer Science & Business Media. 2000.

Geal-Dor M, Kamenir Y, Babkoff H. Event related potentials response: comparison of tonal stimuli to speech stimuli in phonological and semantic tasks. J Basic Clinic Physiol Pharmacol. 2005;16(2-3):139-55.

Tampas JW, Harkrider AW, Hedrick MS. Neurophysiological indices of speech and nonspeech stimulus processing. J Spee Langua Heari Resear. 2005.

Lew HL, Slimp J, Price R, Massagli TL, Robinson LR. Comparison of speech-evoked v tone-evoked p300 response: implications for predicting outcomes in patients with Traumatic Brain Injury1. Americ J Physic Medic Rehabilitat. 1999;78(4):367-71.

Polich J, Martin S. P300, cognitive capability, and personality: A correlational study of university undergraduates. Personality and individual differences. 1992;13(5):533-43.






Original Research Articles