ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Visual mismatch negativity is unaffected by top-down prediction of the timing of deviant events.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual mismatch negativity (VMMN) is an event-related brain potential component that is automatically elicited by infrequent (deviant) stimuli that are inserted among frequent (standard) stimuli (i.e., an oddball sequence). Although the elicitation of VMMN is basically determined in a stimulus-driven manner, it can be modulated by top-down control. In a previous study using a "patterned" oddball sequence, where deviant (D) stimuli were regularly inserted among standard (S) stimuli (i.e., repetitions of an SSSSD pattern), VMMN was largely reduced when participants noticed the SSSSD pattern and actively predicted both the identity and timing of the deviant stimuli compared to when they did not notice the SSSSD pattern and did not form such active prediction. The present study further investigated whether or not active prediction of only the timing of deviant stimuli is sufficient for the reduction of VMMN. With the patterned oddball sequence with one deviant (here, deviant stimuli were fixed throughout the block), VMMN was reduced when the participants noticed the SSSSD pattern and actively predicted both the identity and timing of deviant stimuli (i.e., replication of the previous finding). In contrast, with the patterned oddball sequence with two deviants (deviant stimuli were randomly varied between two possibilities), VMMN was not significantly reduced when the participants noticed the SSSSD pattern and actively predicted only the timing of deviant stimuli. These results suggest that active prediction of only the timing of deviant stimuli is not sufficient to reduce VMMN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29487967What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.