Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (664 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Electrical responses recorded from nerve, muscle, sensory receptor, or area of the central nervous system following stimulation. They range from less than a microvolt to several microvolts. The evoked potential can be auditory (evoked potentials, auditory), somatosensory (evoked potentials, somatosensory), visual (evoked potentials, visual), or motor (evoked potentials, motor), or other modalities that have been reported.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Evoked Potential; Potential, Evoked; Potentials, Evoked; Potentials, Event-Related; Event-Related Potential; Potential, Event-Related; Event-Related Potentials; Event Related Potential.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Cortical Excitability
- Narrower topics
- Contingent Negative Variation; Event-Related Potentials, P300; Evoked Potentials, Auditory; Evoked Potentials, Motor; Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory; Evoked Potentials, Visual; Cortical Spreading Depression
- See also
- Cortical Synchronization; Electroencephalography Phase Synchronization
Related concepts
- Sensory Receptor
- Central Nervous System
- Evoked Potentials
- Auditory
- Somatosensory
- Visual
- Motor
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 132,737 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Evoked Potentials” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 15,982 of them (12.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 56,728 records.
Reviews account for 6,474 records (4.9%) and meta-analyses for 345. Randomized controlled trials number 2,919 (2.2%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 56,728 |
| 2000-2009 | 27,415 |
| 2010-2019 | 32,612 |
| 2020 onward | 15,982 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 6,474 | 4.9% |
| Meta-analyses | 345 | 0.3% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 2,919 | 2.2% |
Method: PubMed query "Evoked Potentials"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in neuroscience
Neuroscience draws on tools with different strengths: cellular and animal work can manipulate circuits directly, while human imaging and electrophysiology observe the living brain at lower resolution. Small imaging studies are prone to false positives, and findings in animals do not always carry over to people. Clinical neurology and psychiatry rely on trials and cohort studies whose outcomes are often symptom scales. Check the species, the sample size, how the outcome was measured and whether results were replicated.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heartbeat-Evoked Responses in M/EEG: A Systematic Review of Methods With Suggestions for Analysis and Reporting | 2026 | Systematic review Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 41943417 · DOI · PMC13053922 |
| Review of methods to derive the heartbeat-evoked potential: past practices and future directions | 2026 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 42464026 · DOI · PMC13585452 |
| Dual role of spreading depolarization in an epileptic focus | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 2 | cc by PMID 41984509 · DOI · PMC13360997 |
Heartbeat-Evoked Responses in M/EEG: A Systematic Review of Methods With Suggestions for Analysis and Reporting [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Heartbeat-evoked responses (HER), as measured by electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG), represent neural activity time-locked to heartbeats and are widely used as a marker of cardiac interoception in the study of brain-body interactions.
- Closing excerpt
- We hope that these resources will improve the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of research in the growing HER field.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (231 words)
Heartbeat-evoked responses (HER), as measured by electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG), represent neural activity time-locked to heartbeats and are widely used as a marker of cardiac interoception in the study of brain-body interactions. However, HER studies report largely variable findings, at least partially due to methodological variability. To achieve consensus on HER processing and improve the reproducibility of findings, the field urgently requires a structured summary of the methods employed so far. To this end, we conducted a systematic review of 132 HER studies using non-invasive M/EEG recordings in humans. Our results reveal substantial heterogeneity across most steps of HER analysis, ranging from data acquisition and preprocessing to HER estimation and statistical approaches. The large diversity in the processing choices is accompanied by considerable proportions of unreported methodological information across reviewed studies, reaching up to 80% for key processing steps. In addition, less than 33% of studies had enough statistical power to reliably detect meta-level HER effects, while their reported spatiotemporal locations varied substantially. We provide a comprehensive reporting and quality control checklist to aid in the development of more standardized procedures, highlighting critical steps for robust HER investigations. Additionally, we share the full extracted dataset, including an interactive version, to support other researchers in answering additional specific questions they may have. We hope that these resources will improve the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of research in the growing HER field.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41943417 · DOI · PMC13053922
Review of methods to derive the heartbeat-evoked potential: past practices and future directions [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- The heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP) is an implicit, electrophysiological marker of cortical heartbeat processing and interoception, with increasing clinical relevance.
- Closing excerpt
- In order to ensure reproducibility and transparency, publications should report critical values for reliable HEP extraction, emphasizing the need for standardized methods to enhance study comparability and reproducibility.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (173 words)
The heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP) is an implicit, electrophysiological marker of cortical heartbeat processing and interoception, with increasing clinical relevance. However, on the scalp, HEP are low-amplitude signals mixed with cardiac field artefacts (CFA), requiring signal processing pipelines to separate HEP from CFA. This review evaluates current analytical approaches and addresses methodological gaps in HEP pipelines. A scoping review of the literature was conducted focusing on previously published HEP studies. This was to extract HEP processing methods and parameters used in EEG (199 included papers) and MEG (8 included papers). Parameters investigated included the HEP window, filters, baseline correction window, epoch timeframes, minimum RR intervals, epoch amplitude rejection threshold, and CFA removal. EEG and MEG studies revealed clear heterogeneity and variability in the methods used to derive HEP. These clear inconsistencies in HEP parameter use and reporting would appear to challenge the level replicability between studies. In order to ensure reproducibility and transparency, publications should report critical values for reliable HEP extraction, emphasizing the need for standardized methods to enhance study comparability and reproducibility.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42464026 · DOI · PMC13585452
Dual role of spreading depolarization in an epileptic focus [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveSpreading depolarizations (SDs) are often associated with epileptic discharges.
- Closing excerpt
- SignificanceThe interactions between SDs and an epileptic focus are not limited to postictal depression, and SDs may also promote epileptic activity in the hyperexcitable cortex.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (260 words)
ObjectiveSpreading depolarizations (SDs) are often associated with epileptic discharges. Although SDs are traditionally thought to contribute to postictal depression and termination of epileptic discharges, seizures may also occur during SDs or may even follow SDs, suggesting that interactions between SD and seizures are more complex. Here, we examined the interactions between SD and epileptic activity by spatially separating the epileptic focus and the site of SD initiation.MethodsSubdural electrocorticographic arrays (6 × 10 electrodes) and intracortical silicon probes were used to record SDs and epileptic activity in the rat parietal cortex. An epileptic focus was induced by local intracortical injection of the potassium channel blocker 4-aminopyridine combined with the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor antagonist gabazine, whereas extrinsic SDs were evoked by distal high-potassium solution application.ResultsWe found that extrinsic SDs exerted a biphasic effect; they initially promoted seizurelike events (SLEs) when the SD wave approached the epileptic focus, which was then followed by suppression of epileptic activity after the SD spread through the focus. The timing of SLEs relative to SDs varied at different recording sites, with SLEs occurring before, during, or after SD arrival depending on electrode position along the trajectory of SD propagation between the SD initiation site and the epileptic focus. During intracortical recordings, the proconvulsive effects of SD were associated with a wave of pre-SD neuronal excitation reaching the epileptic focus. The epileptic focus per se also demonstrated resistance to the SD invasion.SignificanceThe interactions between SDs and an epileptic focus are not limited to postictal depression, and SDs may also promote epileptic activity in the hyperexcitable cortex.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41984509 · DOI · PMC13360997
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article P300 development across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- Research article Non-invasive transcranial ultrasound stimulation for neuromodulation [5]
- Research article The contralateral delay activity as a neural measure of visual working memory [6]
- Research article Predicting coma and other low responsive patients outcome using event-related brain potentials: a meta-analysis [7]
- Research article The erring brain: Error-related negativity as an endophenotype for OCD-A review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Genetics of migraine: where are we now? [9]
References
- Steinfath P, Azanova M, Kapralov N, Loesche T, Enk L, Nikulin V, et al.. Heartbeat-Evoked Responses in M/EEG: A Systematic Review of Methods With Suggestions for Analysis and Reporting. . 2026. PMID 41943417 · DOI · PMC13053922
- Virjee RI, Kandasamy R, Garfinkel SN, Carmichael DW, Yogarajah M. Review of methods to derive the heartbeat-evoked potential: past practices and future directions. . 2026. PMID 42464026 · DOI · PMC13585452
- Vinokurova D, Tukhvatullina K, Khazipov R, Nasretdinov A. Dual role of spreading depolarization in an epileptic focus. . 2026. PMID 41984509 · DOI · PMC13360997
- van Dinteren R, Arns M, Jongsma ML, Kessels RP. P300 development across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014. PMID 24551055 · DOI · PMC3923761
- Darmani G, Bergmann TO, Butts Pauly K, Caskey CF, de Lecea L, Fomenko A, et al.. Non-invasive transcranial ultrasound stimulation for neuromodulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2022. PMID 35033772 · DOI
- Luria R, Balaban H, Awh E, Vogel EK. The contralateral delay activity as a neural measure of visual working memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016. PMID 26802451 · DOI · PMC4869985
- Daltrozzo J, Wioland N, Mutschler V, Kotchoubey B. Predicting coma and other low responsive patients outcome using event-related brain potentials: a meta-analysis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007. PMID 17208048 · DOI
- Riesel A. The erring brain: Error-related negativity as an endophenotype for OCD-A review and meta-analysis. Psychophysiology. 2019. PMID 30838682 · DOI
- Grangeon L, Lange KS, Waliszewska-Prosół M, Onan D, Marschollek K, Wiels W, et al.. Genetics of migraine: where are we now?. J Headache Pain. 2023. PMID 36800925 · DOI · PMC9940421
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.