Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 8, No. 6, 2003
Issue release date: November–December 2003

Preattentive Memory-Based Comparison of Sound Intensity

Jacobsen T. · Horenkamp T. · Schröger E.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Changes in the intensity of repeated, ignored sounds elicit the mismatch negativity (MMN) brain response which reflects preattentive detection of the change. It is generally assumed that the MMN in response to intensity changes reflects a memory-based comparison mechanism rather than being due to differential states of refractoriness of intensity-specific cortical neurons. In the present study, an experimental protocol consisting of 4 oddball blocks and 1 control block was used in order to separate memory-comparison-related effects from refractoriness-related ones. This design allowed an assessment of intensity MMN using physically identical stimuli with equal probability of occurrence in separate blocks, while avoiding contamination by refractoriness. Results were consistent with an MMN in response to intensity change that reflects genuine memory-based comparison.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. American Electroencephalographic Society: American electroencephalographic society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol 1991;8:200–202.
  2. Beagley HA, Knight JJ: Changes in auditory evoked response with intensity. J Laryngol Otol 1967;81:861–873.

    External Resources

  3. Butler RA, Spreng M, Keidel WD: Stimulus repetition rate factors which influence the auditory potential in man. Psychophysiology 1969;5:665–672.
  4. Heil P, Rajan R, Irvine DR: Topographic representation of tone intensity along the isofrequency axis of cat primary auditory cortex. Hear Res 1994;76:188–202.
  5. Jacobsen T, Schröger E: Is there pre-attentive memory-based comparison of pitch? Psychophysiology 2001;38:723–727.
  6. Jacobsen T, Schröger E: Measuring duration mismatch negativity. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114:1133–1143.
  7. Jacobsen T, Schröger E, Horenkamp T, Winkler, I: Mismatch negativity to pitch change: Varied stimulus proportions in controlling effects of neural refractoriness on human auditory event-related brain potentials. Neurosci Lett 2003;344:79–82.
  8. McCarthy G, Wood CC: Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1985;62:203–208.
  9. Näätänen R: Attention and Brain Function. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1992.
  10. Näätänen R, Alho K: Higher-order processes in auditory-change detection. Trends Cogn Sci 1997;2:44–45.
  11. Näätänen R, Gaillard A, Mäntysalo S: Early selective attention reinterpreted. Acta Psychol 1978;42:313–329.
  12. Näätänen, R, Paavilainen P, Alho, K, Reinikainen K, Sams M: Do event-related potentials reveal the mechanism of auditory sensory memory in the human brain? Neurosci Lett 1989;98:217–221.
  13. Näätänen R, Picton T: The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987;24:375–425.
  14. Näätänen R, Sams M, Alho K, Paavilainen P, Reinikainen K, Sokolov EN: Frequency and location specificity of the human vertex N1 wave. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988;69:523–531.
  15. Näätänen R, Tervaniemi M, Sussman E, Paavilainen P, Winkler I: ‘Primitive intelligence’ in the auditory cortex. Trends Neurosci 2001;24:283–288.

    External Resources

  16. Näätänen R, Winkler I: The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychol Bull 1999;125:826–859.
  17. Paavilainen P, Alho K, Reinikainen K, Sams M, Näätänen R: Right hemisphere dominance of different mismatch negativities. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;78:466–479.
  18. Pantev C, Hoke M, Lehnertz K, Lütkenhöner B: Neuromagnetic evidence of an amplitopic organization of the human auditory cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1989;72:225–231.
  19. Picton TW, Goodman WS, Bryce DP: Amplitude of evoked responses to tones of high intensity. Acta Otolaryngol 1970;79:77–82.
  20. Picton TW, Woods DL, Proulx GB: Human auditory sustained potentials. II. Stimulus relationships. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978;45:198–210.
  21. Rapin I, Schimmel H, Tourk LM, Krasnegor LM, Pollack C: Evoked potentials to clicks and tones of varying intensity of waking adults. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1966;21:335–344.
  22. Ritter W, Vaughan HG, Costa LD: Orienting and habituation to auditory stimuli: A study of short term changes in average evoked responses. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1968;25:550–556.
  23. Schröger E: Automatic detection of frequency change is invariant over a large intensity range. Neuroreport 1994;5:825–828.
  24. Schröger E: Higher-order processes in auditory-change detection: A response to Näätänen and Alho. Trends Cogn Sci 1997;2:45–46.

    External Resources

  25. Schröger E: Measurement and interpretation of the mismatch negativity. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1998;30:131–145.
  26. Schröger E, Wolff C: Mismatch response to changes in sound location. Neuroreport 1996;7:3005–3008.
  27. Snyder E, Hillyard SA: Long-latency evoked potentials to irrelevant, deviant stimuli. Behav Biol 1976;16:319–331.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50