Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(07): 348-356
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745619
Original Article

Possible Neuronal Refractory or Recovery Artifacts Associated with Recording the Mismatch Negativity Response

Letitia J. Walker
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
Michael Carpenter
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
C. Renee Downs
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
Jerry L. Cranford
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
Andrew Stuart
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
David Pravica
Department of Mathematics, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The mismatch negativity (MMN) is an event-related potential that involves a negative voltage shift of baseline electroencephalographic (EEG) activity in the approximate latency window of the N, and P2 cortical potentials in response to new or novel sounds. The MMN is present at birth and has been hypothesized to serve as an automatic preconscious detector of changes in the auditory environment. Research paradigms used to extract the MMN response from EEG activity have a potential problem related to neuronal refractoriness or recovery. Both N1 and P2 are known to increase in amplitude with longer interstimulus intervals (ISIs). The MMN extraction procedures involve mathematical subtraction of waveforms elicited by standard sounds (with short ISIs) from those recorded to rare deviant sounds (with longer ISIs). Any ISI-dependent amplitude changes in N, and/or P2 could therefore alter the morphology of the resulting difference wave and lead to misinterpretation of the nature of the underlying MMN generators. We tested 12 young females and found that the MMN can be influenced by ISI-dependent refractory effects that may modify the waveform morphology. This has important clinical implications since the MMN is being investigated as an assessment tool.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, CNS = central nervous system, EEG = electroencephalographic, ERP = event-related potential, ISI = interstimulus interval, LAEP = late auditory evoked potential, MMN = mismatch negativity

Keywords

Attention - auditory event-related potentials - auditory evoked potentials - memory - mismatch negativity - neural recovery - neural refractoriness


Publication History

Article published online:
03 March 2022

© 2001. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • Alho K, Sainio K, Sajaniemi N, Reinikainen K, Naatanen R. (1990). Electrical brain response of human newborns to pitch change of an acoustic stimulus. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 77:151–155.
  • Alho K, Woods D, Algazi A, Knight R, Naatanen R. (1994). Lesions of frontal cortex diminish the auditory mismatch negativity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 91:353–362.
  • American Speech and Hearing Association. (1990). Guidelines for screening for hearing impairments and middle ear disorders. ASHA 32(Suppl 2):17–24.
  • Brand A, Urban A, Grothe B. (2000). Duration tuning in the mouse auditory midbrain. J Neurophysiol 84: 1790–1799.
  • Budd TW, Barry RJ, Gordon E, Rennie C, Michie PT. (1998). Decrement of the N1 auditory event-related potential with stimulus repetition: habituation vs. refractoriness. Int J Psychophysiol 31:51–68.
  • Butler RN. (1973). The cumulative effects of different stimulus repetition rates on the auditory evoked response in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 35:337–345.
  • Casseday JH, Ehrlich D, Covey E. (2000). Neural measurement of sound duration: control by excitatory- inhibitory interactions in the inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 84:1475–1487.
  • Cheour M, Haapanen ML, Hukki J, Ceponiene R, Kurjenluoma S, Alho K, Tervaniemi M, Ranta R, Naatanen R. (1997). The first neurophysiological evidence for cognitive brain dysfunctions in children with CATCH. Cogn Neurosci Neuropsychol 8:1785–1787.
  • Covey E. (2000). Neural population coding and auditory temporal pattern analysis. Physiol Behav 69:211–220.
  • Dalebout S, Fox L. (2000). Identification of the mismatch negativity in the responses of individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 11:12–22.
  • Ehrlich D, Casseday JH, Covey E. (1997). Neural tuning to sound duration in the inferior colliculus of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Neurophysiol 1997:2360–2372.
  • Gaeta H, Friedman D, Ritter W, Cheng J. (1998). An event-related potential study of age-related changes in sensitivity to stimulus deviance. Neurobiol Aging 19:447–459.
  • Guang-Di, Chen A. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration on responses of neurons in the chinchilla inferior colliculus. Hear Res 122:142–150.
  • He JF, Hashikawa T, Ojima H, Kinouchi Y. (1997). Temporal integration and duration tuning in the dorsal zone of cat auditory cortex. J Neurosci 17:2615–2625.
  • Hillyard S, Hink RF, Schwent VL, Picton TW. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 182:177–180.
  • Kane NM, Curry SH, Butler SR, Cummins BH. (1993). Electrophysiological indicator of awakening from coma. Lancet 341:688.
  • Kazmerski VA, Friedman D, Ritter W. (1997). Mismatch negativity during attend and ignore conditions in Alzheimer’s disease. Biol Psychiatry 42:382–402.
  • Korpilahti P, Lang HA. (1994). Auditory ERP components and mismatch negativity in dysphasic children. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurosci 91:256–264.
  • Kraus N, McGee TJ, Sharma A, Carrell TD, Nicol TG. (1992). Mismatch negativity event-related potentials to speech stimuli. Ear Hear 13:158–164.
  • Kraus N, McGee TJ, Micco AG, Carrell T, Sharma A, Nicho TG. (1993a). Mismatch negativity in school-age children to speech stimuli that are just perceptibly different. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88:123–130.
  • Kraus N, McGee TJ, Carrell T, Sharma A, Micco AG, Nicho TG. (1993b). Speech-evoked cortical potentials in children. J Am Acad Audiol 4:238–248.
  • Kraus N, McGee TJ, Carrell TD, Zecker SG, Nicol TG, Koch DB. (1996). Auditory neurophysiologic responses and discrimination deficits in children with learning problems. Science 273:971—973.
  • Kraus N, Koch DB, McGee TJ, Nicol TG, Cunningham J. (1999). Speech-sound discrimination in school-age children: psychophysical and neurophysiologic measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42:1042–1060.
  • Kurtzburg D, Vaughan HG Jr, Kreuzer JA, Fliegler KZ. (1995). Developmental studies and clinical application of mismatch negativity: problems and prospects. Ear Hear 16:105–117.
  • Lang AH, Eerola O, Korpilati P, Holopainen I, Salo S, Aaltonen O. (1995). Practical issues in the clinical application of mismatch negativity. Ear Hear 16:118–130.
  • McGee T, Kraus N, Nicol T. (1997). Is it really a mismatch negativity? An assessment of methods for determining response validity in individual subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 104:359–368.
  • Näätänen R. (1990). The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behav Brain Sei 13:201–288.
  • Näätänen R, Gaillard AWK, Mantysalo S. (1978). Early selective attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol 42:313–329.
  • Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Reinikainen K, Sams M. (1989a). Do event-related potentials reveal the mechanism of the auditory sensory memory in the human brain? Neurosci Lett 98:217–221.
  • Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Reinikainen K, Sams M. (1989b). Event-related potentials to infrequent decrements in duration of auditory stimuli demonstrate a memory trace in man. Neurosci Lett 107:347–352.
  • Näätänen R, Kraus N, eds. (1995). Mismatch negativity as an index of central auditory function. Ear Hear 16:1–146.
  • Näätänen R, Teder W. (1991). Attention effects on the auditory event-related potential. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 491:161–167.
  • Nelson DA, Lassman FM. (1968). Effects of intersignal interval on the human auditory evoked response. J Acoust SocAm 44:1529–1532.
  • Nelson DA, Lassman FM. (1973). Combined effects of recovery period and stimulus intensity on the human auditory-evoked vertex response. J Speech Hear Res 16:297–308.
  • Nelson DA, Lassman FM. (1977). Re-examination of the effects of periodic and aperiodic stimulation on the auditory-evoked vertex response. Audiology 16:409–418.
  • Nielsen-Bohlman Knight RT, Woods DL, Woodward K. (1991). Differential auditory processing continues during sleep. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 79:281–290.
  • Novak G, Ritter W, Vaughan H. (1992). The chronometry of attention-modulated processing and automatic mismatch detections. Psychophysiology 29:412–430.
  • Papanicolaou AC, Loring DW, Eisenberg HM. (1984). Age- related differences in recovery cycle of auditory evoked potentials. Neurobiol Aging 5:291–295.
  • Pekkonen E, Jousmaki V, Kalevi R, Juhani P. (1995). Automatic auditory discrimination is impaired in Parkinson’s disease. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 95:47–52.
  • Pekkonen E, Rinne T, Reinikainen T, Kujala K, Alho K, Naatanen R. (1996). Aging effects on auditory processing: an event-related potential study. Exp Aging Res 22:171–184.
  • Pfingst BE, O’Conner TA. (1981). Characteristics of neurons in auditory cortex of monkeys performing a simple auditory task. J Neurophysiol 45: 16–34.
  • Phillips DP, Orman SS. (1984). Responses of single neurons in posterior field of cat auditory cortex to tonal stimulation. J Neurophysiol 51:147–163.
  • Phillips DP, Orman SS, Musicant AD, Wilson GF (1985). Neurons in the cat’s primary auditory cortex distinguished by their responses to tones and wide-spectrum noise. Hear Res 18:73–86.
  • Phillips DP, Semple MN, Kitzes LM. (1995). Factors shaping the tone level sensitivity of single neurons in posterior field of cat auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 73:674—686.
  • Picton TW, Rodriquez R, Linden R, Maist A. (1985). The neurophysiology of human hearing. Hum Communication Can 9:127–136.
  • Semlitsch HV, Anderer R, Schuster P, Presslich O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology 23:695–703.
  • Shagrass CDA, Overton, Straumanis J J Jr. (1971). Evoked response findings in psychiatric illness related to drug abuse. Biol Psychiatry 3:259–272.
  • Sharma A, Kraus N, McGeeTJ, Carrell TD, Nicol T. (1993). Acoustic versus phonetic representation of speech as reflected in mismatch negativity event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88:64–71.
  • Shucard DW, Cummins KR, Thomas DG, Shucard JL. (1984). Evoked potentials to auditory probes as indices of cerebral specialization of function—replication and extension. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 52:389–393.
  • Suga N, Manabe T. (1982). Neural basis of amplitudespectrum representation in auditory cortex of the mustached bat. J Neurophysiol 4:225–255.