Evidence for the different additivity of the temporal and frontal generators of mismatch negativity: a human auditory event-related potential study
Section snippets
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the University of Helsinki. We wish to thank Drs Rika Takegata and István Winkler for their constructive comments on the manuscript.
References (22)
- et al.
A distributed cortical network for auditory sensory memory in humans
Brain Res.
(1998) - et al.
Impairment in frontal but not temporal components of mismatch negativity in schizophrenia
Int. J. Psychophysiol.
(2002) - et al.
Mismatch negativity subcomponents and ethyl alcohol
Biol. Psychol.
(1996) - et al.
The additivity of the auditory feature analysis in the human brain as indexed by the mismatch negativity: 1+1≈2 but 1+1+1<3
Neurosci. Lett.
(2001) - et al.
Separate time behaviors of the temporal and frontal mismatch negativity sources
Neuroimage
(2000) - et al.
Dynamic sensory updating in the auditory system
Cogn. Brain Res.
(2001) - et al.
Independent processing of changes in auditory single features and feature conjunctions in humans as indexed by the mismatch negativity
Neurosci. Lett.
(1999) - et al.
Adaptive modeling of the unattended acoustic environment reflected in the mismatch negativity event-related potential
Brain Res.
(1996) - et al.
Human pre-attentive auditory change-detection with single, double and triple deviations as revealed by mismatch negativity additivity
Neurosci. Lett.
(2001) Cerebral generators of mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic counterpart (MMNm) elicited by sound changes
Ear Hear.
(1995)
Mismatch negativity in dichotic listening: evidence for interhemispheric differences and multiple generators
Psychophysiology
Cited by (50)
Processing of self-initiated sound motion in the human brain
2021, Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :Sub-additive processing of sound motion and click rate change in Experiment 1 could have led to reduced MORs and a non-significant difference of MORs between active and passive runs. At least for the mismatch negativity, the evidence for additive / sub-additive processing of feature changes is mixed: While some studies reported additivity (e.g., Takegata et al., 1999), others have observed only partial additivity depending on the acoustic feature (Wolff and Schröger, 2001) or depending on the anatomical site of the generators (Paavilainen et al., 2003). Similarly, studies in our own laboratory have suggested sub-additive processing of spatial and spectral feature changes with a roving-oddball paradigm (see Altmann et al., 2007, Fig. 3).
Long-term auditory processing outcomes in early implanted young adults with cochlear implants: The mismatch negativity vs. P300 response
2021, Clinical NeurophysiologyCitation Excerpt :These components furthermore differ in where in the brain they are generated, and at what time after stimulus presentation they appear. The MMN appears as a negative deflection around 150–250 ms after stimulus presentation, and is often observed over fronto-central regions of the brain (e.g., Paavilainen et al., 2003). The P300 appears as a positive deflection around 300 ms after stimulus presentation and is observed over fronto- and parietal regions of the brain (e.g., Kam et al., 2018).
Musical rhythm and pitch: A differential effect on auditory dynamics as revealed by the N1/MMN/P3a complex
2017, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :Finally, this possibility is further sustained by the additivity approach in which the modeled version of the MMN amplitude (and also the N1e) –where the amplitudes of conditions R and P where added- was not statistically different from the amplitude obtained in the R+P condition. This null finding according to Caclin et al. (2006) and Paavilainen et al., (2001, 2003) is to be seen as support for independence of the component generators. More research is needed to clarify under which rhythm contexts is the MMN elicited.
On the early neural perceptual integrality of tones and vowels
2017, Journal of NeurolinguisticsMiddle latency response correlates of single and double deviant stimuli in a multi-feature paradigm
2016, Clinical NeurophysiologyCitation Excerpt :Those former studies offer different explanations for the sub-additivity: One possibility is, that the two features might not be processed fully independently, since both frequency and intensity encoding may utilize the timing of neural impulses (Wolff and Schröger, 2001). Paavilainen and colleagues, 2003, on the other hand, suggest that the temporal generator of MMN behaves in an additive fashion – speaking in favour of an independent processing of frequency and intensity at the level of auditory cortex – whereas it is mainly the frontal MMN generator which shows sub-additivity. The current results are rather in line with the latter interpretation since at the level of the MLR, additivity was observed suggesting that distinct neural populations participate in the processing of frequency and intensity at the early levels of auditory processing.