ArticleBrain topography2025
Pre-attentive Pitch Processing of Harmonic Complex Sounds at Sensor and Source Levels: Comparing Simultaneously Recorded EEG and MEG Data.
Article in Brain topography, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), two of the most widely used tools for studying human brain dynamics, are thought to have varying spatial resolutions. Here, we simultaneously recorded EEG and MEG data from 14 participants to directly compare their sensitivities - at both the sensor and source levels - to the auditory Mismatch Negativity (MMN in EEG and MMNm in MEG) elicited by pitch deviants. At the sensor level, we observed that negative components emerged in early (100-190 ms) and late (260-420 ms) latency windows. These responses displayed a fronto-central distribution in EEG and a centro-parietal distribution in MEG. MEG also yielded larger effect sizes than EEG, likely reflecting differences in signal-to-noise ratio between MEG and EEG. At the source level, our findings support the involvement of a fronto-temporal auditory MMN network. Both EEG and MEG identified generators in the superior temporal gyrus, Heschl's gyrus, interior frontal gyrus, and insular regions. Notably, EEG source localization revealed additional generators in the left superior temporal sulcus not detected by MEG, whereas MEG identified late components generators in the right hemisphere that were not observed with EEG. Taken together, these results suggest that EEG and MEG may provide complementary perspectives on auditory processing. However, given the inherent complexity of comparing data acquired with different methodologies and the limited sample size, our conclusions should be regarded as preliminary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41015619What 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.