In the original article, there were the following mistakes in Table 1 as published:
Row 2, column 2. “substraced” replaced with “subtracted.”
Row 4, column 3. Information about incorrect study. Information deleted.
Row 5. Column 2. “midline” amended to “scalp”
Row 6. Column 2. “Late N2b (250–350 ms): distributed across scalp” deleted – irrelevant.
Row 7: Column 2. Updated to reflect the dual-study results.
Table 1
| References | Topography | Methodological considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Connolly et al. (1990) | Unsubtracted waves: frontocentral; Subtracted (difference) waves: central | 10 participants (trials per condition unclear). |
| Connolly et al. (1992) | Flat distribution across midline sites | Response not visible in averaged waveforms. |
| Connolly and Phillips (1994) | Frontal, central, and parietal | * |
| Van Petten et al. (1999) | Flat distribution across scalp | |
| D'Arcy et al. (2000) | Early N2b (130–230 ms): parietal | |
| Connolly et al. (2001) | Frontal | 10 participants (min. 60 trials per condition). Conflicting MEG data acknowledged to invalidate PMN results.* |
| Hagoort and Brown (2000) | Exp. 1: posterior Exp. 2: no interaction with site. | 12 participants (60 trials per condition). “N200” response to semantic expectation violations. No isolation of phonological anomaly. |
| van den Brink et al. (2001) | Flat distribution across scalp | |
| Newman et al. (2003) | Frontotemporal | Early onset P300 contamination in phonological expected condition. Authors could not confirm absence of PMN in this condition.* |
| D'Arcy et al. (2004) | Frontocentral | 10 participants (24 trials per condition). |
| Newman and Connolly (2009) | Frontal and central | 13 participants (40 trials per condition).* |
Summary of key studies charaterizing the PMN, reported effect topographies and methodological considerations.
See text for full discussion of methodological limitations.
The corrected Table 1 appears below.
Corrections have also been made to the title and keywords of the original article.
The corrected title and keywords are shown below:
Title: The Phonological Mapping (Mismatch) Negativity: History, Inconsistency, and Future Direction.
keywords: event-related potentials, phonology, PMN, N400, MMN, phonological mismatch, phonological mapping, language.
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
References
1
ConnollyJ. F.PhillipsN. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. J. Cogn. Neurosci.6, 256–266. 10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.256
2
ConnollyJ. F.PhillipsN. A.StewartS. H.BrakeW. G. (1992). Event-related potential sensitivity to acoustic and semantic properties of terminal words in sentences. Brain Lang.43, 1–18. 10.1016/0093-934X(92)90018-A
3
ConnollyJ. F.ServiceE.D'ArcyR. C. N.KujalaA.AlhoK. (2001). Phonological aspects of word recognition as revealed by high-resolution spatio-temporal brain mapping. NeuroReport12, 237–243. 10.1097/00001756-200102120-00012
4
ConnollyJ. F.StewartS. H.PhillipsN. A. (1990). The effects of processing requirements on neurophysiological responses to spoken sentences. Brain Lang.39, 302–318. 10.1016/0093-934X(90)90016-A
5
D'ArcyR. C. N.ConnollyJ. F.CrockerS. F. (2000). Latency shifts in the N2b component track phonological deviations in spoken words. Clin. Neurophysiol.111, 40–44. 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00210-2
6
D'ArcyR. C. N.ConnollyJ. F.ServiceE.HawcoC. S.HoulihanM. E. (2004). Separating phonological and semantic processing in auditory sentence processing: a high-resolution event-related brain potential study. Hum. Brain Mapp.22, 40–51. 10.1002/hbm.20008
7
HagoortP.BrownC. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech: semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia38, 1518–1530. 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00052-X
8
NewmanR. L.ConnollyJ. F. (2009). Electrophysiological markers of pre-lexical speech processing: Evidence for bottom–up and top–down effects on spoken word processing. Biol. Psychol.80, 114–121. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.008
9
NewmanR. L.ConnollyJ. F.ServiceE.McivorK. (2003). Influence of phonological expectations during a phoneme deletion task: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology40, 640–647. 10.1111/1469-8986.00065
10
van den BrinkD.BrownC. M.HagoortP. (2001). Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. J. Cogn. Neurosci.13, 967–985. 10.1162/089892901753165872
11
Van PettenC.CoulsonS.RubinS.PlanteE.ParksM. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn.25, 394–417. 10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.394
Summary
Keywords
event-related potentials, phonology, PMN, N400, MMN, phonological mismatch, phonological mapping, language
Citation
Lewendon J, Mortimore L and Egan C (2021) Corrigendum: The Phonological Mapping (Mismatch) Negativity: History, Inconsistency, and Future Direction. Front. Psychol. 11:619241. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.619241
Received
19 October 2020
Accepted
15 December 2020
Published
28 January 2021
Volume
11 - 2020
Edited and reviewed by
Valentina Cuccio, University of Messina, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Lewendon, Mortimore and Egan.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jennifer Lewendon j.lewendon@bangor.ac.uk
This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.