Omission MMN builds up late
-
1
Institute for Psychology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
-
2
Institute of Psychology I, University of Leipzig, Germany
The elicitation of the mismatch negativity (MMN) by an irregular sound depends on the length of the preceding regular sound sequence: detecting the violation of a regularity requires the establishment of a regularity-representation. For simple feature repetition-regularities, like frequency- or intensity-repetitions, the regularity representation is rapidly established: changes following two repetitions (or maybe even only one repetition) elicit an MMN. The buildup of MMN amplitude with the increasing number of preceding repetitions has been interpreted to show the accumulation of evidence for the presence of the regularity.
In the present study, the buildup of MMN to sound omissions was investigated. In passive paradigms, infrequent, unpredictable omissions in a repetitive sequence elicit an MMN if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is shorter than approximately 200 ms. Different models have been put forward to explain this phenomenon: According to 1) the temporal window of integration (TWI) hypothesis, sound information is integrated within approximately 200 ms long intervals following stimulus onset. At SOAs shorter than 200 ms, the TWI starting with a stimulus onset regularly contains two stimuli, but only one when an irregular omission occurs. For longer SOAs, however, TWIs contain only one stimulus regardless of omissions. 2) The loudness summation account states that with short SOAs, loudness summation cannot run its full course, because the onset of the next tone interrupts the summation process. Thereby the tones in the regular part of the sequence are perceived as being softer than those followed by an omission, for which summation is uninterrupted. 3) The third model suggests that the omission MMN is actually a rebound response: an event-related potential emerging from free oscillations of neuronal populations tuned to stimulation rate.
We presented trains consisting of two to nine, 440 Hz, 50 ms long sinusoid tones separated by an SOA of 140 ms. Trains were separated by 700-1400 ms silent intervals. Each train “contained” an omission at the position preceding its last tone. In a control condition, the same tones were presented continuously with an SOA of 140 ms, with 9% omission probability.
Within the trains, omissions elicited no MMN regardless of the number of preceding sounds, whereas an MMN was elicited in the continuous stimulation condition. This shows that omission MMN builds up much slower than MMNs elicited by violations of simple feature-repetition regularities. In their present form, none of the omission MMN models can account for this finding.
Conference:
MMN 09
Fifth Conference on Mismatch Negativity (MMN) and its Clinical and Scientific Applications, Budapest, Hungary, 4 Apr - 7 Apr, 2009.
Presentation Type:
Poster Presentation
Topic:
Poster Presentations
Citation:
Horváth
J,
Müller
D,
Weise
A and
Schroger
E
(2009). Omission MMN builds up late.
Conference Abstract:
MMN 09
Fifth Conference on Mismatch Negativity (MMN) and its Clinical and Scientific Applications.
doi: 10.3389/conf.neuro.09.2009.05.118
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
26 Mar 2009;
Published Online:
26 Mar 2009.
*
Correspondence:
János Horváth, Institute for Psychology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, .horvath@cogpsyphy.hu