PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2298-4290
Research Article

Effect of Abstract Phonemic Complexity on Mismatch Negativity Amplitude

Fadi Najem 
1   Department of Audiology, University of the Pacific, San Francisco, California
,
Letitia White-Minnis
2   McQueary College of Health and Human Services, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Saravanan Elangovan
3   Department of Audiology and Speech-language Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Clifford Franklin
4   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas
,
Abdullah Jamos 
5   Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Mismatch negativity (MMN) reflects a preperceptual neurophysiological response that is generated subconsciously due to the interruption of a memory trace of ongoing sensory events in the environment. It has been widely used by researchers to understand complex perceptual mechanisms. Furthermore, it has been recommended as an objective tool to investigate disorders related to auditory cognition in hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Many researchers suggest that utilizing a larger acoustic difference between standard and deviant stimuli within the oddball paradigm will lead to a more robust MMN response. The purpose of the present study is to examine if increasing the abstract phonemic contrast between standard and deviant stimuli in the oddball paradigm leads to a more robust MMN response.

Methods Fourteen young female adults participated in the present study. To ensure that the MMN response was elicited by phonemic and not acoustic differences in the stimuli, a one-to-many ratio was created for the abstract phonemic features while controlling the acoustic features when designing the oddball paradigm as described by Phillips et al. (2000). MMN amplitude was measured at the Cz and Fz electrodes in two conditions, with two trials in each condition. In condition 1, the standards and deviants differed by one distinctive feature: voicing in trial 1 (/tӕ/ was standard and /dӕ/ was deviant) and place of articulation in trial 2 (/bӕ/ was standard and /dӕ/ was deviant). In condition 2, the standards and deviants differed across two distinctive features: voicing and place of articulation. In trial 1, /pӕ/ was standard and /dӕ/ was deviant; in trial 2, /dӕ/ was standard and /pӕ/ was deviant.

Results MMN amplitudes elicited by two distinctive features were significantly larger than MMN amplitudes elicited by one distinctive feature (p < 0.001). Trials 1 and 2 in each condition showed no statistical difference, and they were repeatable and highly correlated. Recordings from the Cz and Fz electrodes showed no statistical difference and were highly correlated and similar in morphology.

Conclusion It is known in the literature that increasing acoustic complexity elicits a more robust MMN. The present study showed that this assumption can be extended to abstract phonemic complexity. Increasing the phonemic complexity by utilizing more distinctive features in the oddball paradigm increased the amplitude and robustness of the MMN.

Keywords

MMN - mismatch negativity - phonemic MMN - phoneme perception - MMN amplitude


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 24. Juli 2023

Angenommen: 28. März 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
03. April 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
18. Dezember 2024

© 2024. 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

  • 1 Näätänen R, Gaillard AW, Mäntysalo S. Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1978; 42 (04) 313-329
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Näätänen R. The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behav Brain Sci 1990; 13: 201-288
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, King C, Littman T, Nicol T. Discrimination of speech-like contrasts in the auditory thalamus and cortex. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96 (5 Pt 1): 2758-2768
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Näätänen R, Kujala T, Winkler I. Auditory processing that leads to conscious perception: a unique window to central auditory processing opened by the mismatch negativity and related responses. Psychophysiology 2011; 48 (01) 4-22
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Maess B, Jacobsen T, Schröger E, Friederici AD. Localizing pre-attentive auditory memory-based comparison: magnetic mismatch negativity to pitch change. Neuroimage 2007; 37 (02) 561-571
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Levänen S, Ahonen A, Hari R, McEvoy L, Sams M. Deviant auditory stimuli activate human left and right auditory cortex differently. Cereb Cortex 1996; 6 (02) 288-296
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Näätänen R. Mismatch negativity: clinical research and possible applications. Int J Psychophysiol 2003; 48 (02) 179-188
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Näätänen R, Lehtokoski A, Lennes M. et al. Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature 1997; 385 (6615): 432-434
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Bishop DV. Using mismatch negativity to study central auditory processing in developmental language and literacy impairments: where are we, and where should we be going?. Psychol Bull 2007; 133 (04) 651-672
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Winkler I. Interpreting the mismatch negativity. J Psychophysiol 2007; 21 (3–4): 147-163
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kujala T, Tervaniemi M, Schröger E. The mismatch negativity in cognitive and clinical neuroscience: theoretical and methodological considerations. Biol Psychol 2007; 74 (01) 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Phillips C, Pellathy T, Marantz A. et al. Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: an MEG mismatch study. J Cogn Neurosci 2000; 12 (06) 1038-1055
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Näätänen R, Tervaniemi M, Sussman E, Paavilainen P, Winkler I. “Primitive intelligence” in the auditory cortex. Trends Neurosci 2001; 24 (05) 283-288
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lovio R, Halttunen A, Lyytinen H, Näätänen R, Kujala T. Reading skill and neural processing accuracy improvement after a 3-hour intervention in preschoolers with difficulties in reading-related skills. Brain Res 2012; 1448: 42-55
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Singh S, Liasis A, Rajput K, Towell A, Luxon L. Event-related potentials in pediatric cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (06) 598-610
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Engström E, Kallioinen P, Nakeva von Mentzer C. et al. Auditory event-related potentials and mismatch negativity in children with hearing loss using hearing aids or cochlear implants - a three-year follow-up study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 140: 110519
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Szymanski MD, Yund EW, Woods DL. Phonemes, intensity and attention: differential effects on the mismatch negativity (MMN). J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106 (06) 3492-3505
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 White L, Stuart A. Mismatch negativity and P300 to behaviorally perceptible and imperceptible frequency and intensity contrasts. Percept Mot Skills 2011; 113 (02) 425-430
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Wunderlich JL, Cone-Wesson BK. Effects of stimulus frequency and complexity on the mismatch negativity and other components of the cortical auditory-evoked potential. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109 (04) 1526-1537
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Karanasiou IS, Papageorgiou C, Kyprianou M. et al. Effect of frequency deviance direction on performance and mismatch negativity. J Integr Neurosci 2011; 10 (04) 525-536
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Reinikainen K. Do event-related potentials to infrequent decrements in duration of auditory stimuli demonstrate a memory trace in man?. Neurosci Lett 1989; 107 (1–3): 347-352
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Joutsiniemi SL, Ilvonen T, Sinkkonen J. et al. The mismatch negativity for duration decrement of auditory stimuli in healthy subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 108 (02) 154-159
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Näätänen R, Syssoeva O, Takegata R. Automatic time perception in the human brain for intervals ranging from milliseconds to seconds. Psychophysiology 2004; 41 (04) 660-663
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 White L, Stuart A, Najem F. Mismatch negativity and P300 to behaviorally perceptible and imperceptible temporal contrasts. Percept Mot Skills 2010; 110 (3 Pt 2): 1105-1118
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Woldorff MG, Hillyard SA, Gallen CC, Hampson SR, Bloom FE. Magnetoencephalographic recordings demonstrate attentional modulation of mismatch-related neural activity in human auditory cortex. Psychophysiology 1998; 35 (03) 283-292
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Trejo LJ, Ryan-Jones DL, Kramer AF. Attentional modulation of the mismatch negativity elicited by frequency differences between binaurally presented tone bursts. Psychophysiology 1995; 32 (04) 319-328
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Tiitinen H, Jiang D, Alho K. Attention and mismatch negativity. Psychophysiology 1993; 30 (05) 436-450
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kisley MA, Davalos DB, Engleman LL, Guinther PM, Davis HP. Age-related change in neural processing of time-dependent stimulus features. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005; 25 (03) 913-925
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kasai K, Nakagome K, Iwanami A. et al. No effect of gender on tonal and phonetic mismatch negativity in normal adults assessed by a high-resolution EEG recording. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2002; 13 (03) 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Koelsch S, Grossmann T, Gunter TC, Hahne A, Schröger E, Friederici AD. Children processing music: electric brain responses reveal musical competence and gender differences. J Cogn Neurosci 2003; 15 (05) 683-693
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Ikezawa S, Nakagome K, Mimura M. et al. Gender differences in lateralization of mismatch negativity in dichotic listening tasks. Int J Psychophysiol 2008; 68 (01) 41-50
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Sams M, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Näätänen R. Auditory frequency discrimination and event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985; 62 (06) 437-448
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Näätänen R, Alho K. Mismatch negativity – the measure for central sound representation accuracy. Audiol Neurotol 1997; (02) 341-353
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Bradlow AR, Kraus N, Nicol TG. et al. Effects of lengthened formant transition duration on discrimination and neural representation of synthetic CV syllables by normal and learning-disabled children. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106 (4 Pt 1): 2086-2096
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Pettigrew C, Murdoch B, Kei J, Ponton C, Alku P, Chenery H. The mismatch negativity (MMN) response to complex tones and spoken words in individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology 2005; 19 (02) 131-163
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Czamara D, Bruder J, Becker J. et al. Association of a rare variant with mismatch negativity in a region between KIAA0319 and DCDC2 in dyslexia. Behav Genet 2011; 41 (01) 110-119
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Sharma A, Dorman MF. Neurophysiologic correlates of cross-language phonetic perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107 (5 Pt 1): 2697-2703
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Tampas JW, Harkrider AW, Hedrick MS. Neurophysiological indices of speech and nonspeech stimulus processing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (05) 1147-1164
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Elangovan S, Stuart A. Natural boundaries in gap detection are related to categorical perception of stop consonants. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (05) 761-774
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Sharma A, Dorman MF. Cortical auditory evoked potential correlates of categorical perception of voice-onset time. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106 (02) 1078-1083
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Erlbeck H, Kübler A, Kotchoubey B, Veser S. Task instructions modulate the attentional mode affecting the auditory MMN and the semantic N400. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 654
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Karanasiou IS, Papageorgiou C, Tsianaka EI. et al. Mismatch task conditions and error related ERPs. Behav Brain Funct 2010; 6: 14
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Cacace AT, McFarland DJ. Spectral dynamics of electroencephalographic activity during auditory information processing. Hear Res 2003; 176 (1–2): 25-41
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar