ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2022
The influence of different types of auditory change on processes associated with the switching of attention in older adults and people with mild cognitive impairment.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural markers of attention processing in pediatric cochlear implant users: an ERP study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The involuntary detection of acoustic change following presentation of rarely presented deviant auditory stimulus will elicit an event-related potential (ERP), the deviant-related negativity (DRN). If the deviant stimulus is potentially highly relevant, a later P3a may also be elicited. This is thought to reflect processes associated with the switching of attention away from current processing demands. Previous studies have indicated that cognitively healthy older adults are less able to switch processing priorities upon presentation of these stimuli compared to young adults. The present study examined if people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are less able to switch processing priorities than cognitively healthy older adults. Two experiments were run. In each, 20 healthy older adults and 20 people with MCI were presented with to-be-ignored auditory stimuli while engaged in a visual task. The auditory stimuli consisted of frequently-presented standards and different types of deviants. In Experiment 1, the deviants represented either decreases or increases in the intensity of the standard. In Experiment 2, six different deviants were presented. In both experiments, a DRN was elicited by all deviants. Its amplitude did not, however, significantly differ between the two groups. Only the increment, white noise, and environmental sound deviants elicited a P3a. This P3a also did not significantly differ between the two groups. These results indicate that there is no evidence that the ability to switch processing priorities differs between people with MCI and cognitively healthy older adults.
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.