4.6 Article

Measuring duration mismatch negativity

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 6, 页码 1133-1143

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00043-9

关键词

mismatch negativity; auditory sensory memory; preattentive change detection; sound duration; event related brain potential; electrophysiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Automatic comparisons of sound duration in auditory sensory memory are typically investigated by comparing event-related potentials (ERPs) to standard and deviant stimuli presented in oddball blocks. Deviants elicit mismatch negativity (MMN). This procedure might overestimate an MMN contribution reflecting automatic sensory memory processes because of differential states of refractoriness of respectively recruited neural populations [Neuroreport 1996;7:3005; Psychophysiology 2001;38:723]. Here, memory-comparison-based Duration MMN contributions were investigated using various experimental protocols. Methods: Memory-comparison-based first-order Duration MMN was investigated using 4 blocked conditions: (a) descending Deviant (100 ms. P = 0.14), 150 ms Standard; (b) reverse ascending Deviant (150 ms), 100 ms Standard; (c) Control comprised of 7 equiprobable durations between 25 and 175 ms; and additionally (d) equiprobable tones between 100 and 400 ms. Using the former 3 conditions, Deviants, Standards and Controls were physically identical. Results: Comparing Deviants and Controls excluded potential refractoriness effects, and a decomposition of memory-comparison-based MMN and residual MMN was demonstrated. Genuine Duration MMN was also obtained in the deviant-standard-reverse comparison. Conclusions: Using a blocked control condition yielded equivalent results to reversing the role of deviant and standard in two separate oddball blocks. Using the reverse ascending deviant condition is thus sufficient as a control. (C) 2003 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Science 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