Reliability of Mismatch Negativity Event-Related Potentials in a Multisite, Traveling Subjects Study

Roach, Brian J.; Carrión, Ricardo; Hamilton, Holly; Bachman, Peter; Belger, Ayşenil; Duncan, Erica; Johannesen, Jason; Light, Gregory A.; Niznikiewicz, Margaret; Addington, Jean; Bearden, Carrie E.; Cadenhead, Kristin S.; Cannon, Tyrone D.; Cornblatt, Barbara A.; McGlashan, Thomas H.; Perkins, Diana O.; Seidman, Larry J.; Tsuang, Ming T.; Walker, Elaine F.; Woods, Scott W.; Mathalon, Daniel H.

doi:10.1101/768408

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, we focused on the amplitudes of mismatch and P3a responses as targets of the investigation. The amplitudes of these responses showed moderate to robust test-retest reliability (e.g., Pekkonen et al, 1995;Kathmann et al, 1998;Tervaniemi et al, 1999;Schröger et al, 2000;Kujala et al, 2001;Hall et al, 2006;Lew et al, 2007;Biagianti et al, 2017;Roach et al, 2020). In most studies in which both amplitude and latency have been analyzed, the test-retest reliability is greater for amplitude than for latency (e.g., Roach et al, 2020;Lew et al, 2007;Hall et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Somatosensory Deviance Detection ERPs and Their Relationship to Analogous Auditory ERPs and Interoceptive Accuracy

Kangas

Vuoriainen

et al. 2022

Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Automatic deviance detection has been widely explored in terms of mismatch responses (mismatch negativity or mismatch response) and P3a components of event-related potentials (ERPs) under a predictive coding framework; however, the somatosensory mismatch response has been investigated less often regarding the different types of changes than its auditory counterpart. It is not known whether the deviance detection responses from different modalities correlate, reflecting a general prediction error mechanism of the central nervous system. Furthermore, interoceptive functions have been associated with predictive coding theory, but whether interoceptive accuracy correlates with deviance detection brain responses has rarely been investigated. Here, we measured ERPs to changes in somatosensory stimuli’s location and intensity and in sound intensity in healthy adults ( n = 34). Interoceptive accuracy was measured with a heartbeat discrimination task, where participants indicated whether their heartbeats were simultaneous or non-simultaneous with sound stimuli. We found a mismatch response and a P3a response to somatosensory location and auditory intensity changes, but for somatosensory intensity changes, only a P3a response was found. Unexpectedly, there were neither correlations between the somatosensory location deviance and intensity deviance brain responses nor between auditory and somatosensory brain responses. In addition, the brain responses did not correlate with interoceptive accuracy. The results suggest that although deviance detection in the auditory and somatosensory modalities are likely based on similar neural mechanisms at a cellular level, their ERP indexes do not indicate a linear association in sensitivity for deviance detection between the modalities. Furthermore, although sensory deviance detection and interoceptive detection are both associated with predictive coding functions, under these experimental settings, functional relationships were not observed. These results should be taken into account in the future development of theories related to human sensory functions and in extensions of the predictive coding theory in particular.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Somatosensory Deviance Detection ERPs and Their Relationship to Analogous Auditory ERPs and Interoceptive Accuracy

Kangas

Vuoriainen

et al. 2022

Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Stability of mismatch negativity event‐related potentials in a multisite study

Roach¹,

Hamilton

Bachman

et al. 2020

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesMismatch negativity (MMN), an auditory event‐related potential sensitive to deviance detection, is smaller in schizophrenia and psychosis risk. In a multisite study, a regression approach to account for effects of site and age (12–35 years) was evaluated alongside the one‐year stability of MMN.MethodsStability of frequency, duration, and frequency + duration (double) deviant MMN was assessed in 167 healthy subjects, tested on two occasions, separated by 52 weeks, at one of eight sites. Linear regression models predicting MMN with age and site were validated and used to derive standardized MMN z‐scores. Variance components estimated for MMN amplitude and latency measures were used to calculate Generalizability (G) coefficients within each site to assess MMN stability. Trait‐like aspects of MMN were captured by averaging across occasions and correlated with subject traits.ResultsAge and site accounted for less than 7% of MMN variance. G‐coefficients calculated at electrode Fz were stable (G = 0.63) across deviants and sites for amplitude measured in a fixed window, but not for latency (G = 0.37). Frequency deviant MMN z‐scores averaged across tests negatively correlated with averaged global assessment of functioning.ConclusionMMN amplitude is stable and can be standardized to facilitate longitudinal multisite studies of patients and clinical features.

show abstract

Reliability of Mismatch Negativity Event-Related Potentials in a Multisite, Traveling Subjects Study

Cited by 2 publications

References 39 publications

Somatosensory Deviance Detection ERPs and Their Relationship to Analogous Auditory ERPs and Interoceptive Accuracy

Somatosensory Deviance Detection ERPs and Their Relationship to Analogous Auditory ERPs and Interoceptive Accuracy

Stability of mismatch negativity event‐related potentials in a multisite study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About