The individual replicability of mismatch negativity at short and long inter-stimulus intervals

Heritability and Reliability of P300, P50 and Duration Mismatch Negativity

“…Improvement of reliability was suggested by using duration MMN rather than frequency or intensity MMN and a shorter ISI and frontal sites provide the best signal-to-noise ratio (Escera and Grau 1996;Escera et al 2000;Kathmann et al 1999;Pekkonen et al 1995;Tervaniemi et al 1999). The present study examined duration MMN at FZ using 0.3 second ISI and found reliabilities of 0.67 for peak amplitude and 0.66 for mean amplitude.…”

Do video sounds interfere with auditory event-related potentials?

“…However, the reliability of the MMN to a frequency deviant is considerably lower (.2 to .6; Escera & Grau, 1996;Kathmann, Frodl-Bauch, & Hegerl, 1999;Tervaniemi et al, 1999). In fact, the reliability of the MMN appears to approach that of the P1 and N1 only under specific conditions, such as when a duration deviant rather than an intensity or frequency deviant is used (Kathmann et al, 1999;Tervaniemi et al, 1999), when the duration deviant is 66% shorter than the standard rather than 33% (Tervaniemi et al, 1999), or when the MMN is measured using certain interstimulus intervals, amplitude measures (Escera et al, 2000), and electrodes (e.g., F4: Pekkonen et al, 1995). It has been suggested that the MMN is less reliable than the N1 component because it is based on fewer deviant stimuli (Escera & Grau, 1996;Pekkonen et al, 1995).…”

“…It has been suggested that the MMN is less reliable than the N1 component because it is based on fewer deviant stimuli (Escera & Grau, 1996;Pekkonen et al, 1995). However, Escera et al (2000) recently found that the N1 is more reliable than the MMN even when it is based on the same number of stimuli as MMN deviants.…”

“…Correlation coefficients range from 1.0 (the ERP measures are exactly the same) to 0 (the ERP measures are completely dissimilar) to 21.0 (the ERP measures are the inverse of each other). In past experiments, the P1, N1, and P2 have been very reliable, with test-retest or split-half correlation coefficients typically ranging from .7 to .9 (Escera & Grau, 1996;Escera, Yago, Polo, & Grau, 2000;Pekkonen, Rinne, & Näätänen, 1995;Uwer & Suchodoletz, 2000). However, the reliability of the MMN to a frequency deviant is considerably lower (.2 to .6; Escera & Grau, 1996;Kathmann, Frodl-Bauch, & Hegerl, 1999;Tervaniemi et al, 1999).…”

Electric brain responses to inappropriate harmonies during listening to expressive music

“…The late negativity was frontally maximal (right, grey-scaled areas indicate negative potentials, white areas indicate positive potentials). standard chords (Näätänen, 1992;Schröger, 1998;Kujala et al, 2001;Schröger et al, 2000;Tervaniemi et al, 1999;Escera et al, 2000). Moreover, it is interesting to note that the effect observed was not elicited in a repetitive auditory environment, indicating that (early) negative effects as a response to harmonically inappropriate chords can not only be elicited in the repetitive environment of classical auditory 'oddball' paradigms.…”