Cited by 742Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMental Health and Psychiatry

Mismatch negativity in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis

Umbricht, Daniel, Krljes, Sanya·2005·Schizophrenia Research

Abstract

Background Mismatch negativity (MMN) is an auditory event-related potential that provides an index of automatic context-dependent information processing and auditory sensory memory. Many studies have reported abnormalities in the generation of MMN in schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to assess the magnitude of this deficit and associated factors.Method Studies of MMN in schizophrenia were identified and included in a meta-analysis to estimate the mean effect size. Effects of duration of illness, gender ratio, age of patients, type of MMN (duration versus frequency MMN) and characteristics of the test paradigms (deviant probability, magnitude of standard-deviant difference) on effect size were assessed.Results Of 62 identified studies 32 met our inclusion criteria. The mean effect size was 0.99 (95% confidence intervals: 0.79, 1.29). Overall, no specific factor was significantly associated with MMN deficits, although MMN to stimuli differing in duration appeared more impaired in schizophrenia than MMN to frequency deviants. In addition, effect sizes of frequency MMN were significantly correlated with duration of illness.Conclusions MMN deficits are a robust feature in chronic schizophrenia and indicate abnormalities in automatic context-dependent auditory information processing and auditory sensory memory in these patients. Reports of normal MMN in first-episode schizophrenia and the association of deficits in frequency MMN with illness duration suggest that MMN may index ongoing neuropathological changes in the auditory cortex in schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2004.12.002

Cites

122 of 122 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Umbricht, D., & Krljes, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Umbricht, Daniel
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-07
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
1-23
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125206183
Cited by
742
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 30
FWCI
3.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
mismatch negativity, schizophrenia
MeSH terms
Auditory Cortex, Chronic Disease, Contingent Negative Variation, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Humans, Mental Recall, Reference Values, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Sensitivity and Specificity

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