The Five Myths of MMN: Redefining How to Use MMN in Basic and Clinical Research

Overview

Journal Brain Topogr

Specialty Neurology

Date 2013 Oct 26

PMID 24158725

Citations 49

Authors

E S Sussman

S Chen

J Sussman-Fort

E Dinces

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The goal of this review article is to redefine what the mismatch negativity (MMN) component of event-related potentials reflects in auditory scene analysis, and to provide an overview of how the MMN serves as a valuable tool in Cognitive Neuroscience research. In doing so, some of the old beliefs (five common 'myths') about MMN will be dispelled, such as the notion that MMN is a simple feature discriminator and that attention itself modulates MMN elicitation. A revised description of what MMN truly reflects will be provided, which includes a principal focus onto the highly context-dependent nature of MMN elicitation and new terminology to discuss MMN and attention. This revised framework will help clarify what has been a long line of seemingly contradictory results from studies in which behavioral ability to hear differences between sounds and passive elicitation of MMN have been inconsistent. Understanding what MMN is will also benefit clinical research efforts by providing a new picture of how to design appropriate paradigms suited to various clinical populations.

Citing Articles

What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?.

Yukhnovich E, Alter K, Sedley W J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2024; 26(1):33-47.

PMID: 39681798 PMC: 11861849. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-024-00970-1.

Mismatch Negativity in Children with Deficits in Auditory Abilities.

Dalcin Pinto J, Temp D, Ferreira L, Souza A, Garcia M, Andrade A Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; 28(4):e561-e567.

PMID: 39464353 PMC: 11511459. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785458.

Childhood family socioeconomic status is linked to adult brain electrophysiology.

Isbell E, Rodas De Leon N, Richardson D PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0307406.

PMID: 39163384 PMC: 11335154. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307406.

A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between symptoms of anxiety/depression and P50 sensory gating in adult patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Liu X, Liu S, Ren R, Wang X, Han C, Liu Z Front Neurosci. 2024; 17:1286340.

PMID: 38249591 PMC: 10796775. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1286340.

Neural field theory of adaptive effects on auditory evoked responses and mismatch negativity in multifrequency stimulus sequences.

Babaie-Janvier T, Gabay N, McInnes A, Robinson P Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 17:1282924.

PMID: 38234595 PMC: 10791997. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1282924.

References

TREISMAN A . Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychol Rev. 1969; 76(3):282-99. DOI: 10.1037/h0027242. View

Winkler I, Lehtokoski A, Alku P, Vainio M, Czigler I, Csepe V . Pre-attentive detection of vowel contrasts utilizes both phonetic and auditory memory representations. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1998; 7(3):357-69. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(98)00039-1. View

Sussman E, Horvath J, Winkler I, Orr M . The role of attention in the formation of auditory streams. Percept Psychophys. 2007; 69(1):136-52. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194460. View

Ylinen S, Uther M, Latvala A, Vepsalainen S, Iverson P, Akahane-Yamada R . Training the brain to weight speech cues differently: a study of Finnish second-language users of English. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009; 22(6):1319-32. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21272. View

Hisagi M, Shafer V, Strange W, Sussman E . Perception of a Japanese vowel length contrast by Japanese and American English listeners: behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Brain Res. 2010; 1360:89-105. PMC: 2994183. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.08.092. View

Jacobsen T, Schroger E . Input to verbal working memory: Preattentive construction of the central speech representation. Exp Psychol. 2004; 51(4):231-9. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.51.4.231. View

Kujala T, Naatanen R . The mismatch negativity in evaluating central auditory dysfunction in dyslexia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2001; 25(6):535-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00032-x. View

Naatanen R, Paavilainen P, Tiitinen H, Jiang D, Alho K . Attention and mismatch negativity. Psychophysiology. 1993; 30(5):436-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb02067.x. View

Davids N, van den Brink D, van Turennout M, Mitterer H, Verhoeven L . Towards neurophysiological assessment of phonemic discrimination: context effects of the mismatch negativity. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(6):1078-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.01.018. View

10.

Dalebout S, Stack J . Mismatch negativity to acoustic differences not differentiated behaviorally. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000; 10(7):388-99. View

11.

Sussman E, Gumenyuk V . Organization of sequential sounds in auditory memory. Neuroreport. 2005; 16(13):1519-23. DOI: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000177002.35193.4c. View

12.

Winkler I, Sussman E, Tervaniemi M, Horvath J, Ritter W, Naatanen R . Preattentive auditory context effects. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2003; 3(1):57-77. DOI: 10.3758/cabn.3.1.57. View

13.

Rahne T, Bockmann M, von Specht H, Sussman E . Visual cues can modulate integration and segregation of objects in auditory scene analysis. Brain Res. 2007; 1144:127-35. PMC: 1885229. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.074. View

14.

Sussman E, Ritter W, Vaughan Jr H . Predictability of stimulus deviance and the mismatch negativity. Neuroreport. 1999; 9(18):4167-70. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-199812210-00031. View

15.

Rahne T, Sussman E . Neural representations of auditory input accommodate to the context in a dynamically changing acoustic environment. Eur J Neurosci. 2008; 29(1):205-11. PMC: 2649007. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06561.x. View

16.

May P, Tiitinen H . Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained. Psychophysiology. 2009; 47(1):66-122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00856.x. View

17.

Bendixen A, Jones S, Klump G, Winkler I . Probability dependence and functional separation of the object-related and mismatch negativity event-related potential components. Neuroimage. 2009; 50(1):285-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.037. View

18.

Kujala T, Halmetoja J, Naatanen R, Alku P, Lyytinen H, Sussman E . Speech- and sound-segmentation in dyslexia: evidence for a multiple-level cortical impairment. Eur J Neurosci. 2006; 24(8):2420-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05100.x. View

19.

Sams M, Alho K, Naatanen R . Sequential effects on the ERP in discriminating two stimuli. Biol Psychol. 1983; 17(1):41-58. DOI: 10.1016/0301-0511(83)90065-0. View

20.

De Sanctis P, Ritter W, Molholm S, Kelly S, Foxe J . Auditory scene analysis: the interaction of stimulation rate and frequency separation on pre-attentive grouping. Eur J Neurosci. 2008; 27(5):1271-6. PMC: 2696930. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06080.x. View