A Comparison of the mismatch negativity and a differential waveform response

Reducing Loss to Follow-Up with Tele-audiology Diagnostic Evaluations

“…9,10,14 Our model is the first to have successfully established a comprehensive infant audiologic evaluation program, where all aspects of the evaluation are completed remotely. This model is consistent with the recommendations by Elangovan et al 18 and Krumm and Syms, 9 to use interactive video synchronously with the diagnostic test to direct and monitor the telepresenter regarding electrode and ear probe placement, while remotely controlling the tests. In this study, we have been able to show that the infant diagnostic test battery can be successfully completed by a remote pediatric audiologist using the help of a telepresenter.…”

Searching for the Mismatch Negativity in Primary Auditory Cortex of the Awake Monkey: Deviance Detection or Stimulus Specific Adaptation?

“…Importantly, deflections in AEP difference waveforms elicited in the oddball condition are not ‘novel’ components, but simply represent the modulation of ‘obligatory’ components, e.g., putative monkey homologues of the human P1, N1, and P2. These findings parallel those of ERP studies in humans which suggest that larger deviant responses reflect SSA of obligatory components elicited by standards (e.g., Jaaskelainen et al, 2004; Elangovan et al, 2005; May and Tiitinen, 2010) rather than ‘sensory memory’ or ‘novelty detection’ processes (Naatanen et al, 2005). Finally, induced high- and very-high-GBA elicited in the oddball and many standards control conditions were similar.…”

Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained

“…However, no such augmentation was found, supporting the adaptation model for frequency MMN generation. This result was recently verified by Jääskeläinen et al (2004, Experiment 2), who used the same tone‐alone versus oddball comparison, and it is also corroborated by the results of Elangovan, Cranfordt, Walker, and Stuart (2005), Korzyukov et al (1999), and Umbricht, Vyssotki, Latanov, Nitsch, and Lipp (2005), none of whom found a larger oddball than tone‐alone response.…”

“…May et al (1999) suggested that the oddball condition employed together with the deviants‐alone condition could provide positive evidence for an MMN generator, assuming that only suppressive modulation mechanisms (i.e., adaptation and lateral inhibition) affect the cortical areas producing the N1: If the response to a stimulus presented as a deviant among standards is larger than that to the same stimulus presented without the intervening standards, the enhancement must be due to activity originating from some other areas than those producing the N1. However, experiments that have used this setup (Elangovan et al, 2005; Jääskeläinen et al, 2004; Korzyukov et al, 1999; May et al, 1999; Umbricht et al, 2005) have been unable to yield positive proof for the memory‐based model of MMN. Further, results concerning the plasticity of cortical cells cast doubt on whether even the deviants‐alone setup suggested by May et al (1999) can offer a reliable test for the presence of a memory‐based MMN.…”