J Clin Neurol.  2012 Mar;8(1):35-42. 10.3988/jcn.2012.8.1.35.

Theta Oscillation Related to the Auditory Discrimination Process in Mismatch Negativity: Oddball versus Control Paradigm

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Neurology, Korea University Medical Center Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. jungky@korea.ac.kr
  • 2Department of Biomedical Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
  • 3Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to identify the mechanism underlying the auditory discriminatory process reflected in mismatch negativity (MMN), using time-frequency analysis of single-trial event-related potentials (ERPs).
METHODS
Two auditory tones of different probabilities (oddball paradigm) and the same probability (control paradigm) were used. The average dynamic changes in amplitude were evaluated, and the in-phase consistency of the EEG spectrum at each frequency and time window across trials, event-related spectral perturbations (ERSPs), and inter-trial phase coherence (ITC) were computed.
RESULTS
Subtraction of the ERPs of standard stimuli from the ERPs of deviant stimuli revealed a clear MMN component in the oddball paradigm. However, no discernible MMN component was observed in the control paradigm. Statistical tests showed that in the oddball paradigm, deviant tones produced significant increases of theta ERSPs and ITC at around 250 ms as compared with the standard tone, while no significant difference between the two stimuli was observed in the control paradigm.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results confirm that the auditory discriminatory process reflected in MMN is accompanied by phase resetting and power modulation at the theta frequency.

Keyword

event-related potential; mismatch negativity; auditory discrimination; event-related spectral perturbations; inter-trial phase coherence

MeSH Terms

Discrimination (Psychology)
Electroencephalography
Evoked Potentials

Figure

  • Fig. 1 A: Grand averages showing N1 and N2 components evoked by a standard and a deviant stimulus in the oddball paradigm. The MMN is clearly elicited by subtracting the ERP evoked by a standard stimulus from the ERP evoked by a deviant stimulus. B: Voltage topographic mapping of each ERP component. ERP: event-related potential, MMN: mismatch negativity.

  • Fig. 2 A: Grand averages showing N1 and N2 components evoked by a standard and a deviant stimulus in the control paradigm. There is no discernible MMN component in the control paradigm. B: Voltage topographic mapping of each ERP component. ERP: event-related potential, MMN: mismatch negativity.

  • Fig. 3 ERSP in response to standard (A) and deviant (B) tones, and the difference between the two (C) in the oddball (upper row) and control (lower row) paradigms at the Fz electrode. The color of each image pixel indicates a significant change (p<0.001) of power (in dB) at a given frequency and latency relative to the baseline period (200 ms prior to stimulus onset). Note that the box in (C) indicates the TFOI for further statistical analysis. Topographic distributions of ERSPs from this box are depicted. ERSP: event-related spectral perturbations, TFOI: time-frequency of interest.

  • Fig. 4 ITC in response to standard (A) and deviant (B) tones, and the difference between the two (C) in the oddball (upper row) and control (lower row) paradigms at the Fz electrode. The color of each image pixel indicates a significant change (p<0.001) of power (in dB) at a given frequency and latency relative to the baseline period (200 ms prior to stimulus onset). Note that the box in (C) indicates the TFOI for further statistical analysis. Topographic distributions of the ITC from this box are depicted. ITC: inter-trial phase coherence, TFOI: time-frequency of interest.


Reference

1. Näätänen R, Gaillard AW, Mäntysalo S. Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1978. 42:313–329.
Article
2. Näätänen R, Tervaniemi M, Sussman E, Paavilainen P, Winkler I. "Primitive intelligence" in the auditory cortex. Trends Neurosci. 2001. 24:283–288.
Article
3. Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007. 118:2544–2590.
Article
4. Makeig S, Westerfield M, Jung TP, Enghoff S, Townsend J, Courchesne E, et al. Dynamic brain sources of visual evoked responses. Science. 2002. 295:690–694.
Article
5. Rousselet GA, Husk JS, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB. Single-trial EEG dynamics of object and face visual processing. Neuroimage. 2007. 36:843–862.
Article
6. Fell J, Dietl T, Grunwald T, Kurthen M, Klaver P, Trautner P, et al. Neural bases of cognitive ERPs: more than phase reset. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004. 16:1595–1604.
Article
7. Mormann F, Fell J, Axmacher N, Weber B, Lehnertz K, Elger CE, et al. Phase/amplitude reset and theta-gamma interaction in the human medial temporal lobe during a continuous word recognition memory task. Hippocampus. 2005. 15:890–900.
Article
8. Hanslmayr S, Klimesch W, Sauseng P, Gruber W, Doppelmayr M, Freunberger R, et al. Alpha phase reset contributes to the generation of ERPs. Cereb Cortex. 2007. 17:1–8.
Article
9. Fuentemilla L, Marco-Pallarés J, Münte TF, Grau C. Theta EEG oscillatory activity and auditory change detection. Brain Res. 2008. 1220:93–101.
Article
10. Hsiao FJ, Wu ZA, Ho LT, Lin YY. Theta oscillation during auditory change detection: an MEG study. Biol Psychol. 2009. 81:58–66.
Article
11. Kimura M, Katayama J, Ohira H, Schröger E. Visual mismatch negativity: new evidence from the equiprobable paradigm. Psychophysiology. 2009. 46:402–409.
Article
12. Ulanovsky N, Las L, Nelken I. Processing of low-probability sounds by cortical neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2003. 6:391–398.
Article
13. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004. 134:9–21.
Article
14. Jung TP, Makeig S, Humphries C, Lee TW, McKeown MJ, Iragui V, et al. Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology. 2000. 37:163–178.
Article
15. Makeig S, Debener S, Onton J, Delorme A. Mining event-related brain dynamics. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004. 8:204–210.
Article
16. Onton J, Westerfield M, Townsend J, Makeig S. Imaging human EEG dynamics using independent component analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006. 30:808–822.
Article
17. Onton J, Delorme A, Makeig S. Frontal midline EEG dynamics during working memory. Neuroimage. 2005. 27:341–356.
Article
18. Klimesch W. EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1999. 29:169–195.
Article
19. Näätänen R, Jacobsen T, Winkler I. Memory-based or afferent processes in mismatch negativity (MMN): a review of the evidence. Psychophysiology. 2005. 42:25–32.
Article
20. Lin YY, Hsiao FJ, Shih YH, Yiu CH, Yen DJ, Kwan SY, et al. Plastic phase-locking and magnetic mismatch response to auditory deviants in temporal lobe epilepsy. Cereb Cortex. 2007. 17:2516–2525.
Article
21. Doeller CF, Opitz B, Mecklinger A, Krick C, Reith W, Schröger E. Prefrontal cortex involvement in preattentive auditory deviance detection: neuroimaging and electrophysiological evidence. Neuroimage. 2003. 20:1270–1282.
Article
22. Rinne T, Alho K, Ilmoniemi RJ, Virtanen J, Näätänen R. Separate time behaviors of the temporal and frontal mismatch negativity sources. Neuroimage. 2000. 12:14–19.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JCN
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr