ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Shaping the Visual Mismatch Response: The Influence of Exogenous Components and Stimulus Placement.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Shaping the Visual Mismatch Response: The Influence of Exogenous Components and Stimulus Placement.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between the pattern-specific event-related potential (ERP) components (C1, C2, C3) and the component specific to automatic change detection in the visual modality (visual mismatch response, vMMR) and the influence of stimulus placement on the latter. These insights would help to understand whether the emergence of vMMR is due to the modulation of exogenous activity or a specific deviant-related activity and advance the methodology of investigating vMMR. In two experiments, we presented checkerboard patterns in passive oddball sequences consisting of frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) events to examine vMMR as a function of the stimulated half-fields. In Experiment 1, the lower and upper half-field stimuli were presented within the same sequences, whereas in Experiment 2, they were presented in different sequences, completed with whole-field stimulation. As expected, we observed polarity reversal of the C1 and C2 components as a function of the stimulated half-field. Deviant stimuli elicited negative vMMR during lower and whole-field stimulation, but upper half-field stimulation evoked no significant vMMR. At lower half-field stimulation, the C2 component was larger to deviant stimuli, indicating the contribution of exogenous components to the deviant-standard difference. The sLORETA calculations showed that similar sources, including the primary visual cortex and other visual areas, were active during all exogenous and deviant-related components. Altogether, these results demonstrate the relationship between the pattern-specific and vMMR components and the more dominant influence of lower half-field stimulation in the recorded brain activity during automatic change detection.
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.