Alain C, Achim A, Woods D L
Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, North York, Ontario, Canada.
Psychophysiology. 1999 Nov;36(6):737-44.
Detecting deviant, and potentially meaningful, auditory events depends on transient representations of preceding stimuli. Here, we examined whether the neural circuitry underlying deviance detection system varied as a function of deviance type. In different blocks of trials, participants were presented with a sequence that included standard and deviant tones differing in frequency or a sequence of tones that alternated regularly in frequency with occasional deviant repetitions. Both frequency- and pattern-deviant stimuli elicited a mismatch negativity (MMN) peaking between 120 and 175 ms poststimulus. The MMN amplitude distribution was more frontal for frequency-deviant than for pattern-deviant stimuli. There are two possible explanations for these results. Both frequency- and pattern-deviation MMNs might arise in the same set of generators whose relative strength of activation varies. Alternatively, frequency- and pattern-deviation MMNs could originate in different generators. These alternatives were investigated using principal component analysis and signal identification methods. These methods revealed that no common signal space could account for both of the MMNs, indicating different generator sources for the analysis of frequency and pattern deviance. The results suggest separate memory-related processing for auditory frequency and patterns and indicate that the neural circuit of deviance detection varies as a function of the perceptual context.
检测异常且可能有意义的听觉事件依赖于先前刺激的瞬时表征。在此,我们研究了偏差检测系统背后的神经回路是否会因偏差类型的不同而变化。在不同的试验组中,向参与者呈现包含频率不同的标准音和偏差音的序列,或者是频率有规律交替且偶尔有偏差重复的音序列。频率偏差和模式偏差刺激均引发了失配负波(MMN),其峰值出现在刺激后120至175毫秒之间。频率偏差刺激的MMN振幅分布比模式偏差刺激更靠前。对于这些结果有两种可能的解释。频率偏差和模式偏差的MMN可能都产生于同一组发生器,其激活的相对强度有所不同。或者,频率偏差和模式偏差的MMN可能起源于不同的发生器。使用主成分分析和信号识别方法对这些可能性进行了研究。这些方法表明,没有共同的信号空间能够解释这两种MMN,这表明在分析频率偏差和模式偏差时发生器来源不同。结果表明,听觉频率和模式存在与记忆相关的独立处理过程,并且表明偏差检测的神经回路会因感知背景的不同而变化。