4.6 Article

The mismatch negativity (MMN) with no standard stimulus

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 121, 期 7, 页码 1043-1050

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.02.009

关键词

Mismatch negativity (MMN); Event-related potential (ERP); Central auditory processing; Sound discrimination; Memory trace

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [213933, 211486]
  2. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [211486, 213933, 211486, 213933] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The recent fast multi-feature mismatch negativity (MMN) paradigms rest on the assumption that the deviant stimuli, alternating with the standard tone, strengthen the memory trace of the standard in respect to those attributes they have in common. In the present study, we tested whether the MMN can be recorded even without the standard stimulus, with the invariant properties of the deviant stimuli serving as a standard against which to detect the sound changes. Methods: MMN was recorded for changes in sound duration, frequency, intensity, location, gap, brightness, density, and noise level in a new multi-feature paradigm where no standard stimuli were used. In addition, these MMNs were compared with those recorded in the conventional multi-feature paradigm. Results: All sound changes elicited significant MMN responses that were highly similar between paradigms. Conclusions: The MMN can be recorded even without the standard stimulus, as an accurate memory trace is constructed for the invariant features of the auditory input. Significance: Omitting the standard stimuli results in almost 50% shorter recording time and the larger selection of deviant types with the newly introduced brightness, density, and noise-level changes provides even more information on the individual perceptual profiles than conventional multi-feature paradigms. (C) 2010 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据