Sound omission related brain responses in children

Abstract

Action is an important way for children to learn about the world. Recent theories suggest that action is inherently accompanied by the sensory prediction of its effects. Such predictions can be revealed by rarely omitting the expected sensory consequence of the action, resulting in an omission response that is observable in the EEG. Although prediction errors play an important role in models of learning and development, little is known about omission-related brain responses in children. This study used a motor-auditory omission paradigm, testing a group of 6–8-year-old children and an adult group (N = 31 each). In an identity-specific condition, the sound coupled to the motor action was predictable, while in an identity unspecific condition the sound was unpredictable. Results of a temporal principal component analysis revealed that sound-related brain responses underlying the N1-complex differed considerably between age groups. Despite these developmental differences, omission responses (oN1) were similar between age groups. Two subcomponents of the oN1 were differently affected by specific and unspecific predictions. Results demonstrate that children, independent from the maturation of sound processing mechanisms, can implement specific and unspecific predictions as flexibly as adults. This supports theories that regard action and prediction error as important drivers of cognitive development.

Neuronal responses to omitted tones in the auditory brain: A neuronal correlate for predictive coding

“…To resolve these on the neuronal level, the high temporal resolution available in electrophysiology is highly suited. On the basis of single-unit recordings, our study demonstrates clear omission responses at the spiking level in the auditory system and thus identifies a potential neuronal correlate for those omission responses previously recorded using noninvasive techniques such as EEG/magnetoencephalography in humans (9,16,25,(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49).…”

Salient omissions—pupil dilation in response to unexpected omissions of sound and touch

“…Sounds were presented binaurally for 200 ms using Sennheiser HD-25 headphones and were tapered-cosine windowed (10 ms rise- and 10 ms fall-time) and root mean square (RMS) matched. Loudness was set at 70.4 dB SPL for all participants [identical to ( 31 )]. A new sound was presented for each auditory experimental block, where all 48 sounds were balanced across participants.…”

“…An initial data analysis was planned a priori and aimed to replicate the analysis strategy from preceding EEG studies ( 30 – 32 , 34 , 35 ). These studies in a first step typically compared omissions in the 88%-condition to the motor-control condition as well as omissions in the 50%-condition to the motor-control condition to confirm whether omission responses were elicited in the respective conditions.…”

“…However, it is not yet clear what these conditions may be. In contrast, studies using EEG have consistently demonstrated robust activations in response to omissions over the past years ( 30 – 37 ). Moreover, the omission P3 (oP3) component that is elicited in response to omissions in the EEG seems to resemble the novelty or surprise evoked P3a.…”

Somatosensory omissions reveal action‐related predictive processing

“…The somatosensory oN1 shows some notably similar characteristics to the auditory oN1, as the auditory oN1 resembles the topography of the t‐complex components N1a and N1c that are elicited by auditory stimuli (maximal over temporal electrode locations; Dercksen et al, 2020, 2022; SanMiguel, Saupe, & Schröger, 2013). The auditory N1a and N1c are thought to originate from the secondary auditory cortex or belt region (Bruneau et al, 1999; Näätänen & Picton, 1987; Ponton et al, 2002; Woods, 1995).…”