ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Auditory object segmentation amplifies prediction error signals in a complex MMN paradigm.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Auditory deviance detection depends on the segmentation of sound sequences into perceptually meaningful units, which provide the basis for predictive models. Complex mismatch negativity (MMN) paradigms, including dual-rule designs, place higher demands on these processes because regularities are defined by relationships across tones rather than by single features. However, it remains unclear how facilitation of auditory segmentation influences MMN. To address this, we compared MMN elicited during a dual-rule paradigm under continuous versus temporally segmented (750 ms gap) conditions in thirty-two participants using simultaneous EEG and MEG recordings. Two 50-ms binaural pure tones were presented in pairs. Tone A was a 1 kHz stimulus biased to the right ear, and Tone B was a 1.2 kHz stimulus biased to the left ear. Within each pair, tones followed with a 330 ms Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA), with standards consisting of A-B pairs (85.6%) and deviants of A-A pairs (14.3%). Two conditions were used: a No-Gap condition, where pairs followed continuously with a 330 ms SOA, and a Gap condition, where pairs were separated by a longer 750 ms SOA. Results at EEG FCz revealed dual-rule MMN amplitudes (130-230 ms) were not significantly different between No-Gap and Gap conditions (t
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.