Attention and mismatch negativity

Abstract

The mismatch negativity (MMN) component of the auditory event-related potential (ERP) is elicited by infrequent, physically deviant stimuli in a sequence of frequent homogeneous stimuli (standards). It has been suggested that the MMN is generated by an automatic (attention-independent) neural mismatch process with a memory trace that encodes the physical features of the standard stimulus. The proposed MMN independence of attention was addressed in the present study. Standard stimuli and two types of deviant stimuli, differing from standards either in frequency or intensity, were dichotically presented in random order and at a rapid rate. The subject attended either to left- or right-ear stimuli, counting the number of a designated type of deviants in that ear. In the present conditions of very strongly focused attention, the MMN was elicited even by frequency change in the ignored input stream, and its amplitude was very similar to that of the MMN elicited by equivalent deviant stimuli (targets) in the attended input stream. In contrast, the MMN to intensity deviation was clearly attenuated in the absence of attention. This effect is, however, probably due to the attention effect on the MMN generator itself rather than the antecedent sensory-analysis and -storing functions.

A mismatch negativity study of local–global auditory processing

“…However, there are at least two arguments against this as the explanation for the differences between local and global conditions. Firstly, the MMN has been recorded for stimuli whose frequency or temporal deviations were within the local ranges presented, or smaller (e.g., Jaramillo et al, 2000;Novitski et al, 2004;Näätänen et al, 1993;Sams et al, 1985;Tervaniemi et al, 1999). Secondly, from behavioral studies, we know that it is at least possible for individuals to discriminate between local patterns varying in just one tone (Justus and List, 2005), despite the behavioral data reported here revealing an asymmetry between structural levels when actively detecting deviants.…”

“…Importantly, MMN is not evoked under conditions of continuously changing stimuli, unless the so-called deviant is itself a repetition (repetition negativity, 1 e.g., Horváth and Winkler, 2004). Although the MMN can be modulated by attention, its elicitation does not depend on it (Alain and Woods, 1997;Näätänen et al, 1993); indeed, it is frequently recorded while listeners are actively engaged in an unrelated task (e.g., Alho et al, 1994). More remarkably, it can even be recorded in comatose patients (Fischer et al, 2000;Kane et al, 1993), revealing the MMN to be a powerful tool for investigating what dimensions of auditory input are processed automatically.…”

Phonetic Recalibration in Audiovisual Speech

“…The MMN is a component in the eventrelated potential (ERP) that signals an infrequent discriminable change in an acoustic or phonological feature of a repetitive sound (Näätänen, Gaillard, & Mäntysalo, 1978), and its latency and amplitude is correlated with the behavioural discriminability of the stimuli (Lang et al, 1990). The MMN is thought to be generated through automatic change detection and is elicited irrespective of sound-relevance for the participant's task (Näätänen, 1992;Näätänen, Paavilainen, Tiitinen, Jiang, & Alho, 1993). The MMN is not only sensitive to acoustic changes, but also to learned language specific auditory deviancy (Näätänen, 2001;Winkler et al, 1999).…”

“…Voor selectieve adaptatie was al bekend dat een secundaire taak die aandacht vereist geen invloed heeft op de na-effecten (Samuel & Kat, 1998) en de resultaten met betrekking tot recalibratie lijken hetzelfde aan te geven. Hoewel in hoofdstuk 5 de rol van aandacht niet op een directe manier werd getest, zijn de onaangetaste recalibratie effecten in overeenstemming met de argumenten dat AV integratie van spraak automatisch geschiedt (zie bijvoorbeeld McGurk & MacDonald, 1976;Näätänen et al, 1993;Soto-Faraco et al, 2004).…”

Cortical processing of change detection: Dissociation between natural vowels and two-frequency complex tones

“…Although the mismatch response may be modulated by attention (22,23), it is unlikely that the subjects would have paid more attention to the nonspeech than speech stimuli. In addition, possible shifts in attention do not explain why MMF amplitude differences were observed between the complex tones but not between the vowels.…”