Skip to main content

Prevalence of mismatch negativity with tonal stimuli in normal-hearing individuals

Abstract

Electrophysiological measures are one of the objective modes of assessment to check the integrity of the auditory function. The endogenous potentials like mismatch negativity (MMN) are responses which are due to internal events such as cognition or perception. In clinical practice and researches it was observed that MMN not present in all normal hearing individual. So, there is a need to study prevalence of MMN in normal population, which helps the researchers and clinicians in interpreting clinical findings. 50 participants recruited in the age range of 18–25 years. MMN was recorded with pair of stimuli. The pair was having /1000Hz/ and /1100Hz/ with /1000Hz/ as frequent stimulus and /1100Hz/ as the infrequent stimulus. Out of 50 normal hearing subjects, MMN was present only in 33 normal hearing subjects (66%). So clinician should be cautious during interpretation of clinical findings using MMN in abnormal population.

References

  1. 1

    Näätänen R, Gaillard AW, Mäntysalo S. Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1978; 42: 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Näätänen R, Escera C. Mismatch negativity: clinical and other applications. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5: 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Aaltonen O, Niemi P, Nyrke T, Tuhkanen M. Event-related brain potentials and the perception of a phonetic continuum. Biol Psychol 1987; 24: 197–207.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Kraus N, Cheour M. Speech sound representation in the brain. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5: 140–150.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Pekkonen E. Mismatch negativity in aging and in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson′s diseases. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5: 216–224.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Fischer C, Morlet D, Giard M. Mismatch negativity and N100 in comatose patients. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5: 192–197.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Paavilainen P, Tiitinen H, Alho K, Näätänen R. Mismatch negativity to slight pitch changes outside strong attentional focus. Biol Psychol 1993; 37: 23–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Picton TW, Alain C, Otten L, Ritter W, Achim A. Mismatch negativity: different water in the same river. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5: 111–139.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Kasai K, Nakagome K, Iwanami A, Fukuda M, Itoh K, Koshida I, 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: 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Martin BA, Tremblay KL, Korczak P. Speech evoked potentials: from the laboratory to the clinic. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 285–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Pulvermüller F, Shtyrov Y. Language outside the focus of attention: the mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Prog Neurobiol 2006; 79: 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Koelsch S, Schröger E, Tervaniemi M. Superior pre-attentive auditory processing in musicians. Neuroreport 1999; 10: 1309–1313.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Lang AH, Eerola O, Korpilahti P, Holopainen I, Salo S, Aaltonen O. Practical issues in the clinical application of mismatch negativity. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 118–130.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    McGee T, Kraus N, Nicol T. Is it really a mismatch negativity? An assessment of methods for determining response validity in individual subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 104: 359–368.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B. Integrated mismatch negativity (MMNi): a noise-free representation of evoked responses allowing single-point distribution-free statistical tests. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 104: 143–150.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Dalebout SD, Fox LG. Reliability of the mismatch negativity in the responses of individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12: 245–253.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Kurtzberg D, Vaughan HG Jr, Kreuzer JA, Fliegler KZ. Developmental studies and clinical application of mismatch negativity: problems and prospects. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 105–117.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Himanshu Kumar Sanju.

Additional information

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanju, H.K., Kumar, P. Prevalence of mismatch negativity with tonal stimuli in normal-hearing individuals. Egypt J Otolaryngol 32, 57–60 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.175857

Download citation

Keywords

  • mismatch negativity
  • prevalence
  • tonal