Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(01): 12-22
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748004
Original Article

Identification of the Mismatch Negativity in the Responses of Individual Listeners

Susan D. Dalebout
Communication Disorders Program, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
,
Lisa G. Fox
Communication Disorders Program, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The mismatch negativity (MMN) was recorded from normal adults in three stimulus conditions: two contrast conditions and a control condition in which standard and deviant stimuli were identical. Averaged waveforms were analyzed by examiners blind to the evoking stimulus condition. Hit rates, a false alarm rate, and d values were determined based on the number of MMNs identified in each condition. Hit rates were low and the false alarm rate was relatively high, resulting in unacceptably small d values. The relationship between MMN findings and corresponding behavioral discrimination data for individual listeners was not systematic. Factors that may contribute to ambiguity and error in MMN data analysis are discussed.

Abbreviations: ABR = auditory brainstem response, Cz = vertex, Fz = 30 percent of the distance between nasion and inion at the midline, MLR = middle latency response, MMN = mismatch negativity, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio

Key Words

Auditory evoked potentials - central auditory processing - mismatch negativity


Publication History

Article published online:
05 April 2022

© 2000. 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

  • Dalebout SD, Robey RR. (1997). Comparison of the inter-subject and intrasubject variability of exogenous and endogenous auditory evoked potentials. J Am Acad Audiol 8:342–354.
  • Dalebout SD, Stack JW. (1999). Mismatch negativity to acoustic differences not differentiated behaviorally. J Am Acad Audiol 7:388–399.
  • Elberling C, Don M. (1984). Quality estimation of averaged auditory brainstem responses. Scand Audiol 13: 187-197.
  • Klatt D. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J Acoust Soc Am 67:971–995.
  • Kraus N. (1996). The discriminating brain: MMN and acoustic change. Hear J 49:10–43.
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Sharma A, Carrell T, Nicol T. (1992). Mismatch negativity event-related potential elicited by speech stimuli. Ear Hear 13:158–164.
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, Sharma A, Micco A, Nicol T. (1993a). Speech-evoked cortical potentials in children. J Am Acad Audiol 4:238–248.
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Ferre J, Hoeppner J, Carrell T, Sharma A, Nicol T. (1993b). Mismatch negativity in the neurophysiologic/behavioral evaluation of auditory processing deficits: a case study. Ear Hear 14:223–234.
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Micco A, Sharma A, Carrell T, Nicol T. (1993c). Mismatch negativity in school-age children to speech stimuli that are just perceptibly different. Electro-encephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88:123–130.
  • Kraus N, Micco AG, Koch DB, McGee T, Carrell T, Sharma A, Wiet RJ, Wiengarten CZ. (1993d). The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 65:118–124.
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, King C, Tremblay K, Nicol T. (1995). Central auditory system plasticity associated with speech discrimination training. J Cogn Neurosci 7:25–32.
  • Kraus N, McGee TJ, Carrell TD, Zecker SG, Nicol TG, Koch DB. (1996). Auditory neurophysiology responses and discrimination deficits in children with learning problems. Science 273:971–973.
  • Kurtzburg D, Vaughan HG, Kreuzer JA, Fliegler KZ. (1995). Developmental studies and clinical application of mismatch negativity: problems and prospects. Ear Hear 16:104–117.
  • Lang AH, Eerola O, Korpilahti 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. Electroencepha-logr Clin Neurophysiol 104:359–368.
  • Näätänen R. (1995). The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear Hear 16:6–18.
  • Näätänen R, Gaillard AWK, Mantysalo S. (1978). Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol 42:313–329.
  • Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B. (1997). Integrated mismatch negativity (MMN): a noise-free representation of evoked responses allowing single-point distribution-free statistical tests. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 104:143–150.
  • Raz J, Turetsky B, Fein G. (1988). Confidence intervals for the signal-to-noise ratio when a signal embedded in noise is observed over repeated trials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35:646–649.
  • Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, Nicol T. (1993). Acoustic versus phonetic representation of speech as reflected by the mismatch negativity event-related potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88:64–71.
  • Swets JA. (1964). Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Tremblay K, Kraus N, Carrell TD, McGee T. (1997). Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training. J Acoust Soc Am 102: 3762–3773.
  • Turetsky BI, Raz J, Fein G. (1988). Noise and signal power and their effects on evoked potential estimation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 71:310–318.
  • Walley A, Carrell T. (1983). Onset spectra and formant transitions in the adult's and child's perception of place of articulation in stop consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 73: 1011–1022.