Cited by 9Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryNeural dynamics and brain function

The effect of deviance predictability on mismatch negativity in schizophrenia patients

Horacek, Magdalena, Kärgel, Christian, Scherbaum, Norbert, Müller, Bernhard W.·2016·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

Mismatch negativity (MMN) is an electrophysiological index of prediction error processing and recently has been considered an endophenotype marker in schizophrenia. While the prediction error is a core concept in the MMN generation, predictability of deviance occurrence has rarely been assessed in MMN research and in schizophrenia patients. We investigated the MMN to 12% temporally predictable or unpredictable duration decrement deviant stimuli in two runs in 29 healthy controls and 31 schizophrenia patients. We analyzed MMN amplitudes and latencies and its associations with clinical symptoms at electrode Fz. With a stimulus onset asynchronicity of 500 ms in the regular predictable condition, a deviant occurred every 4s while it varied randomly in the unpredictable condition. In the random condition we found diminished MMN amplitudes in patients which normalized in the regular deviance condition, resulting in an analysis of variance main effect of predictability and a predictability x group interaction. Deviance predictability did not affect the MMN of control subjects and we found no relevant results with regard to MMN latencies. Our results indicate that MMN amplitudes in patients normalize to the level of the control subjects in the case of a temporally fixed regular deviant. In schizophrenia patients the detection of deviance is basically intact. However, the temporal uncertainty of deviance occurrence may be of substantial relevance to the highly replicated MMN deficit in schizophrenia patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.02.010

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patients with schizophrenia showed a reduction in MMN amplitude in the unpredictable condition but no reduction in MMN amplitude in the predictable condition.

    “Patients with schizophrenia showed a reduction in MMN amplitude in the unpredictable condition but no reduction in MMN amplitude in the predictable condition.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horacek, M., Kärgel, C., Scherbaum, N., & Müller, B. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Wuppertal (DE)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Müller, Bernhard W.
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
617
Pages
76-81
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2271994439
Cited by
9
References
32
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
mismatch negativity, schizophrenia, temporal uncertainty, endophenotypes, deviance detection, stimulus onset asynchrony
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Schizophrenia, Case-Control Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review