Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39301208›Full record

ArticleNeurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Can the Mismatch Negativity Really Be Elicited by Abstract Linguistic Contrasts?

Stephen Politzer-Ahles, Bernard A J Jap

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Stephen Politzer-AhlesDepartment of Linguistics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5474-7930
Bernard A J JapDepartment of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5276-9805

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mismatch negativity (MMN) is an event-related potential component that reflects pre-attentive change detection in the brain. As an electrophysiological index of processing that responds to differences in incoming consecutive stimuli, the MMN can be elicited through, for example, the presentation of two different categories of sounds in an oddball paradigm where sounds from the "standard" category occur frequently and sounds from the "deviant" category occur rarely. The specificity of what can elicit the MMN is yet to be fully defined. Here we test whether the MMN can be generated by an abstract linguistic contrast with no reliable acoustic cue. Previous studies have shown that the way in which an acoustic cue is used to elicit MMN is influenced by linguistic knowledge, but have not shown that a nonacoustic, abstract linguistic contrast can itself elicit MMN. In this study, we test the strongest interpretation of the claim that the MMN can be generated through a purely linguistic contrast by contrasting tenses in ablauting irregular English verbs (where there is no reliable acoustic cue for tense). We find that this contrast elicits a negativity, as do other linguistic contrasts previously shown to elicit MMN (a contrast between phonologically voiced and phonologically voiceless segments and a purely acoustic contrast between aspirated and unaspirated segments). The findings provide evidence that the MMN is indeed sensitive to purely abstract linguistic categories.

Indexed as

abstract linguistic processingauditory deviance detectionevent-related potential (ERP)mismatch negativity (MMN)

Identifiers

PMID39301208
PMCPMC11410353

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.