Trial reportClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology2020
Reliability of mismatch negativity event-related potentials in a multisite, traveling subjects study.
Trial report in Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mismatch Negativity in Subjects at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: No Evidence of Progressive Decline.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Machine learning classification of active viewing of pain and non-pain images using EEG does not exceed chance in external validation samples.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Review
- Mismatch negativity and clinical trajectories in psychotic disorders: Five-year stability and predictive utility.Psychological medicine · 2023Article
- Stability of mismatch negativity event-related potentials in a multisite study.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the optimal methods for measuring mismatch negativity (MMN), an auditory event-related potential (ERP), and quantify sources of MMN variance in a multisite setting.
methodsReliability of frequency, duration, and double (frequency + duration) MMN was determined from eight traveling subjects, tested on two occasions at eight laboratory sites. Deviant-specific variance components were estimated for MMN peak amplitude and latency measures using different ERP processing methods. Generalizability (G) coefficients were calculated using two-facet (site and occasion), fully-crossed models and single-facet (occasion) models within each laboratory to assess MMN reliability.
resultsG-coefficients calculated from two-facet models indicated fair (0.4 < G<=0.6) duration MMN reliability at electrode Fz, but poor (G < 0.4) double and frequency MMN reliability. Single-facet G-coefficients averaged across laboratory resulted in improved reliability (G > 0.5). MMN amplitude reliability was greater than latency reliability, and reliability with mastoid referencing significantly outperformed nose-referencing.
conclusionsEEG preprocessing methods have an impact on the reliability of MMN amplitude. Within site MMN reliability can be excellent, consistent with prior single site studies. SIGNIFICANCE: With standardized data collection and ERP processing, MMN can be reliably obtained in multisite studies, providing larger samples sizeswithin rare patient groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.