Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35221952›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021

Dynamics of Oddball Sound Processing: Trial-by-Trial Modeling of ECoG Signals.

Françoise Lecaignard, Raphaëlle Bertrand, Peter Brunner, Anne Caclin, Gerwin Schalk, Jérémie Mattout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Somatosensory Mismatch Negativity.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Françoise LecaignardLyon Neuroscience Research Center, CRNL, INSERM, U1028, CNRS, UMR 5292, Lyon, France.
Raphaëlle BertrandLyon Neuroscience Research Center, CRNL, INSERM, U1028, CNRS, UMR 5292, Lyon, France.
Peter BrunnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Anne CaclinLyon Neuroscience Research Center, CRNL, INSERM, U1028, CNRS, UMR 5292, Lyon, France.
Gerwin SchalkNational Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Albany, NY, United States.
Jérémie MattoutLyon Neuroscience Research Center, CRNL, INSERM, U1028, CNRS, UMR 5292, Lyon, France.

Funding

Project 5: ComputationalP50MH109429 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI Robert Thomas Knight · 2017 to 2026
$25.3M
Training and DisseminationP41EB018783 · NIBIB · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI Theresa M. Vaughan · 2014 to 2026
$15.4M
BCI2000: Software Resource for Adaptive Neurotechnology ResearchU24NS109103 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BRUNNER, PETER · 2019 to 2024
$2.8M
BCI2000+: A Software Platform for Adaptive NeurotechnologiesR01EB026439 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BRUNNER, PETER · 2018 to 2022
$1.5M
Dynamics and Causal Functions of Large-Scale Cortical and Subcortical NetworksU01NS108916 · NINDS · WADSWORTH CENTER · PI WOLPAW, JONATHAN RICKEL · 2018 to 2019
$1.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB018783NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026439NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH109429NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS108916NINDS NIH HHS U24 NS109103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent computational models of perception conceptualize auditory oddball responses as signatures of a (Bayesian) learning process, in line with the influential view of the mismatch negativity (MMN) as a prediction error signal. Novel MMN experimental paradigms have put an emphasis on neurophysiological effects of manipulating regularity and predictability in sound sequences. This raises the question of the contextual adaptation of the learning process itself, which on the computational side speaks to the mechanisms of gain-modulated (or precision-weighted) prediction error. In this study using electrocorticographic (ECoG) signals, we manipulated the predictability of oddball sound sequences with two objectives: (i) Uncovering the computational process underlying trial-by-trial variations of the cortical responses. The fluctuations between trials, generally ignored by approaches based on averaged evoked responses, should reflect the learning involved. We used a general linear model (GLM) and Bayesian Model Reduction (BMR) to assess the respective contributions of experimental manipulations and learning mechanisms under probabilistic assumptions. (ii) To validate and expand on previous findings regarding the effect of changes in predictability using simultaneous EEG-MEG recordings. Our trial-by-trial analysis revealed only a few stimulus-responsive sensors but the measured effects appear to be consistent over subjects in both time and space. In time, they occur at the typical latency of the MMN (between 100 and 250 ms post-stimulus). In space, we found a dissociation between time-independent effects in more anterior temporal locations and time-dependent (learning) effects in more posterior locations. However, we could not observe any clear and reliable effect of our manipulation of predictability modulation onto the above learning process. Overall, these findings clearly demonstrate the potential of trial-to-trial modeling to unravel perceptual learning processes and their neurophysiological counterparts.

Indexed as

Bayesian learningBayesian model reductiongeneral linear modelmismatch negativitypredictive codingsingle-trial analysis

Identifiers

PMID35221952
PMCPMC8866734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.