The Magnetic Acoustic Change Complex and Mismatch Field: A Comparison of Neurophysiological Measures of Auditory Discrimination

Shu Hui Yau; Fabrice Bardy; Paul F Sowman; Jon Brock; Shu Hui Yau; Fabrice Bardy; Paul F Sowman; Jon Brock

doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2017.1.14

AIMS Neuroscience

2017, Volume 4, Issue 1: 14-27. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2017.1.14

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

The Magnetic Acoustic Change Complex and Mismatch Field: A Comparison of Neurophysiological Measures of Auditory Discrimination

1.
ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Australia;
2.
Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia;
3.
Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, United Kingdom;
4.
HEARing Co-operative Research Centre, VIC, Australia;
5.
National Acoustic Laboratories, NSW, Australia;
6.
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia

Received: 15 November 2016 Accepted: 08 February 2017 Published: 10 February 2017

The Acoustic Change Complex (ACC), a P1-N1-P2-like event-related response to changes in a continuous sound, has been suggested as a reliable, objective, and efficient test of auditory discrimination. We used magnetoencephalography to compare the magnetic ACC (mACC) to the more widely used mismatch field (MMF). Brain responses of 14 adults were recorded during mACC and MMF paradigms involving the same pitch and vowel changes in a synthetic vowel sound. Analyses of peak amplitudes revealed a significant interaction between stimulus and paradigm: for the MMF, the response was greater for vowel changes than for pitch changes, whereas, for the mACC, the pattern was reversed. A similar interaction was observed for the signal to noise ratio and single-trial analysis of individual participants’ responses showed that the MMF to Pitch changes was elicited less consistently than the other three responses. Results support the view that the ACC/mACC is a robust and efficient measure of simple auditory discrimination, particularly when researchers or clinicians are interested in the responses of individual listeners. However, the differential sensitivity of the two paradigms to the same acoustic changes indicates that the mACC and MMF are indices of different aspects of auditory processing and should, therefore, be seen as complementary rather than competing neurophysiological measures.
- Acoustic change complex,
- auditory discrimination,
- magnetoencephalography,
- mismatch field,
- mismatch negativity
Citation: Shu Hui Yau, Fabrice Bardy, Paul F Sowman, Jon Brock. The Magnetic Acoustic Change Complex and Mismatch Field: A Comparison of Neurophysiological Measures of Auditory Discrimination[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2017, 4(1): 14-27. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2017.1.14

Related Papers:

Abstract

The Acoustic Change Complex (ACC), a P1-N1-P2-like event-related response to changes in a continuous sound, has been suggested as a reliable, objective, and efficient test of auditory discrimination. We used magnetoencephalography to compare the magnetic ACC (mACC) to the more widely used mismatch field (MMF). Brain responses of 14 adults were recorded during mACC and MMF paradigms involving the same pitch and vowel changes in a synthetic vowel sound. Analyses of peak amplitudes revealed a significant interaction between stimulus and paradigm: for the MMF, the response was greater for vowel changes than for pitch changes, whereas, for the mACC, the pattern was reversed. A similar interaction was observed for the signal to noise ratio and single-trial analysis of individual participants’ responses showed that the MMF to Pitch changes was elicited less consistently than the other three responses. Results support the view that the ACC/mACC is a robust and efficient measure of simple auditory discrimination, particularly when researchers or clinicians are interested in the responses of individual listeners. However, the differential sensitivity of the two paradigms to the same acoustic changes indicates that the mACC and MMF are indices of different aspects of auditory processing and should, therefore, be seen as complementary rather than competing neurophysiological measures.

References

[1]	Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, et al. (2000) Maturation of human central auditory system activity: evidence from multi-channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 111: 220-236. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00236-9
[2]	Alho K (1995) Cerebral generators of mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic counterpart (MMNm) elicited by sound changes. Ear Hear 16: 38-51.
[3]	Hari R, Hamalainen M, Ilmoniemi R, et al. (1984) Responses of the primary auditory cortex to pitch changes in a sequence of tone pips: neuromagnetic recordings in man. Neurosci Lett 50: 127-132. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(84)90474-9
[4]	Amenedo E, Escera C (2000) The accuracy of sound duration representation in the human brain determines the accuracy of behavioural perception. Eur J Neurosci 12: 2570-2574. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00114.x
[5]	Baldeweg T, Richardson A, Watkins S, et al. (1999) Impaired auditory frequency discrimination in dyslexia detected with mismatch evoked potentials. Ann Neurol 45: 495-503.
[6]	Lang AH, Eerola O, Korpilahti P, et al. (1995) Practical issues in the clinical application of mismatch negativity. Ear Hear 16: 118-130. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199502000-00009
[7]	Kujala T, Kallio J, Tervaniemi M, et al. (2001) The mismatch negativity as an index of temporal processing in audition. Clin Neurophysiol 112: 1712-1719. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00625-3
[8]	Dalebout SD, Fox LG (2001) Reliability of the mismatch negativity in the responses of individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 12: 245-253.
[9]	Kurtzberg D, Vaughan HG, Jr., Kreuzer JA, et al. (1995) Developmental studies and clinical application of mismatch negativity: problems and prospects. Ear Hear 16: 105-117. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199502000-00008
[10]	Morr ML, Shafer VL, Kreuzer JA, et al. (2002) Maturation of mismatch negativity in typically developing infants and preschool children. Ear Hear 23: 118-136. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200204000-00005
[11]	Uwer R, von Suchodoletz W (2000) Stability of mismatch negativities in children. Clin Neurophysiol 111: 45-52. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00204-7
[12]	Wunderlich JL, Cone-Wesson BK (2001) Effects of stimulus frequency and complexity on the mismatch negativity and other components of the cortical auditory-evoked potential. J Acoust Soc Am 109: 1526-1537. doi: 10.1121/1.1349184
[13]	Martin BA, Boothroyd A (2000) Cortical, auditory, evoked potentials in response to changes of spectrum and amplitude. J Acoust Soc Am 107: 2155-2161. doi: 10.1121/1.428556
[14]	Martin BA, Boothroyd A (1999) Cortical, auditory, event-related potentials in response to periodic and aperiodic stimuli with the same spectral envelope. Ear Hear 20: 33-44. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199902000-00004
[15]	Tremblay KL, Friesen L, Martin BA, et al. (2003) Test-retest reliability of cortical evoked potentials using naturally produced speech sounds. Ear Hear 24: 225-232.
[16]	He SM, Grose JH, Buchman CA (2012) Auditory discrimination: The relationship between psychophysical and electrophysiological measures. Int J Audiol 51: 771-782. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.699198
[17]	Martin BA (2007) Can the acoustic change complex be recorded in an individual with a cochlear implant? Separating neural responses from cochlear implant artifact. J Am Acad Audiol.
[18]	Hari R, Parkkonen L, Nangini C (2010) The brain in time: insights from neuromagnetic recordings. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1191: 89-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05438.x
[19]	Roberts TP, Schmidt GL, Egeth M, et al. (2008) Electrophysiological signatures: magnetoencephalographic studies of the neural correlates of language impairment in autism spectrum disorders. Int J Psychophysiol 68: 149-160. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.01.012
[20]	Johnson BW, McArthur G, Hautus M, et al. (2013) Lateralized auditory brain function in children with normal reading ability and in children with dyslexia. Neuropsychologia 51: 633-641. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.12.015
[21]	Luck SJ (2005) An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[22]	Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97-113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
[23]	Wechsler D (2008) Wechsler adult intelligence scale - fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
[24]	Boersma P, Weenink D (2009) Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1. 05).
[25]	Kado H, Higuchi M, Shimogawara M, et al. (1999) Magnetoencephalogram systems developed at KIT. IEEE T Appl Supercon 9: 4057-4062. doi: 10.1109/77.783918
[26]	Uehara G, Adachi Y, Kawai J, et al. (2003) Multi-channel SQUID systems for biomagnetic measurement. IEICE T Electron E86c: 43-54.
[27]	Raicevich G, Burwood E, Dillon H, et al. (2010) Wide band pneumatic sound system for MEG. 20th International Congress on Acoustics: ICA. pp. 1-5.
[28]	Litvak V, Mattout J, Kiebel S, et al. (2011) EEG and MEG data analysis in SPM8. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011: 852961.
[29]	Bishop DV, Hardiman MJ (2010) Measurement of mismatch negativity in individuals: a study using single-trial analysis. Psychophysiology 47: 697-705.
[30]	Wager TD, Keller MC, Lacey SC, et al. (2005) Increased sensitivity in neuroimaging analyses using robust regression. Neuroimage 26: 99-113. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.011
[31]	Lehmann D, Skrandies W (1980) Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 48: 609-621. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(80)90419-8
[32]	Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134: 9-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
[33]	Liegeois-Chauvel C, Giraud K, Badier JM, et al. (2001) Intracerebral evoked potentials in pitch perception reveal a functional asymmetry of the human auditory cortex. Ann N Y Acad Sci 930: 117-132.
[34]	Pratt H, Starr A, Michalewski HJ, et al. (2009) Auditory-evoked potentials to frequency increase and decrease of high- and low-frequency tones. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 360-373. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.10.158
[35]	Alain C, Woods DL, Knight RT (1998) A distributed cortical network for auditory sensory memory in humans. Brain Res 812: 23-37. doi: 10.1016/S0006-8993(98)00851-8
[36]	Giard MH, Perrin F, Pernier J, et al. (1990) Brain generators implicated in the processing of auditory stimulus deviance: a topographic event-related potential study. Psychophysiology 27: 627-640. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb03184.x
[37]	Jemel B, Achenbach C, Muller BW, et al. (2002) Mismatch negativity results from bilateral asymmetric dipole sources in the frontal and temporal lobes. Brain Topogr 15: 13-27. doi: 10.1023/A:1019944805499
[38]	Jaaskelainen IP, Ahveninen J, Bonmassar G, et al. (2004) Human posterior auditory cortex gates novel sounds to consciousness. P Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 6809-6814. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0303760101
[39]	May PJ, Tiitinen H (2010) Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance‐elicited auditory deflection, explained. Psychophysiology 47: 66-122. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00856.x
[40]	Scherg M, Vajsar J, Picton TW (1989) A source analysis of the late human auditory evoked potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 1: 336-355. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1989.1.4.336
[41]	Escera C, Alho K, Schroger E, et al. (2000) Involuntary attention and distractibility as evaluated with event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neuro-Otology 5: 151-166. doi: 10.1159/000013877
[42]	Garrido MI, Kilner JM, Stephan KE, et al. (2009) The mismatch negativity: a review of underlying mechanisms. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 453-463. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.029
[43]	Naatanen R, Kujala T, Winkler I (2011) Auditory processing that leads to conscious perception: a unique window to central auditory processing opened by the mismatch negativity and related responses. Psychophysiology 48: 4-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01114.x
[44]	Naatanen R, Tervaniemi M, Sussman E, et al. (2001) "Primitive intelligence" in the auditory cortex. Trends Neurosci 24: 283-288. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01790-2
[45]	Rinne T, Alho K, Ilmoniemi RJ, et al. (2000) Separate time behaviors of the temporal and frontal mismatch negativity sources. Neuroimage 12: 14-19. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0591
[46]	Todd J, Myers R, Pirillo R, et al. (2010) Neuropsychological correlates of auditory perceptual inference: a mismatch negativity (MMN) study. Brain Res 1310: 113-123. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.11.019
[47]	Bendixen A, Schroger E, Winkler I (2009) I heard that coming: event-related potential evidence for stimulus-driven prediction in the auditory system. J Neurosci 29: 8447-8451. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1493-09.2009
[48]	Bardy F, McMahon CM, Yau SH, et al. (2014) Deconvolution of magnetic acoustic change complex (mACC). Clin Neurophysiol 125: 2220-2231. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.03.003
[49]	Kujala T, Tervaniemi M, Schroger E (2007) The mismatch negativity in cognitive and clinical neuroscience: theoretical and methodological considerations. Biol Psychol 74: 1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.001
[50]	Naatanen R (2001) The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology 38: 1-21. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3810001
[51]	Pulvermuller F, Shtyrov Y (2006) Language outside the focus of attention: The mismatch negativity. as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Prog Neurobiol 79: 49-71.
[52]	Naatanen R, Jacobsen T, Winkler I (2005) Memory-based or afferent processes in mismatch negativity (MMN): a review of the evidence. Psychophysiology 42: 25-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00256.x

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)