Cited by 35Schizophrenia research and treatmentNeuroscience and Music PerceptionNeural dynamics and brain function

Parsing components of auditory predictive coding in schizophrenia using a roving standard mismatch negativity paradigm

Open access
McCleery, Amanda, Mathalon, Daniel H., Wynn, Jonathan K., Roach, Brian J., Hellemann, Gerhard S., Marder, Stephen R., Green, Michael F.·2019·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mismatch negativity (MMN) is an event-related potential (ERP) component reflecting auditory predictive coding. Repeated standard tones evoke increasing positivity ('repetition positivity'; RP), reflecting strengthening of the standard's memory trace and the prediction it will recur. Likewise, deviant tones preceded by more standard repetitions evoke greater negativity ('deviant negativity'; DN), reflecting stronger prediction error signaling. These memory trace effects are also evident in MMN difference wave. Here, we assess group differences and test-retest reliability of these indices in schizophrenia patients (SZ) and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: Electroencephalography was recorded twice, 2 weeks apart, from 43 SZ and 30 HC, during a roving standard paradigm. We examined ERPs to the third, eighth, and 33rd standards (RP), immediately subsequent deviants (DN), and the corresponding MMN. Memory trace effects were assessed by comparing amplitudes associated with the three standard repetition trains. RESULTS: Compared with controls, SZ showed reduced MMNs and DNs, but normal RPs. Both groups showed memory trace effects for RP, MMN, and DN, with a trend for attenuated DNs in SZ. Intraclass correlations obtained via this paradigm indicated good-to-moderate reliabilities for overall MMN, DN and RP, but moderate to poor reliabilities for components associated with short, intermediate, and long standard trains, and poor reliability of their memory trace effects. CONCLUSION: MMN deficits in SZ reflected attenuated prediction error signaling (DN), with relatively intact predictive code formation (RP) and memory trace effects. This roving standard MMN paradigm requires additional development/validation to obtain suitable levels of reliability for use in clinical trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291718004087

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Relatively intact repetition effects were found in all schizophrenia patients.

    “However, they also found relatively intact repetition effects in all schizophrenia patients (26).”

    From A Predictive Coding Perspective on Mismatch Negativity Impairment in Schizophrenia (2020) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Results report repetition-related RP effects in the schizophrenia group that did not differ significantly from controls, and the Discussion says those effects were equally evident in both groups. These are group-level findings, not evidence that every patient had intact effects. The paper also reports a trend toward attenuated DN repetition effects in schizophrenia, so the claim is too broad if it refers to repetition effects generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several studies have developed new paradigms to investigate whether reduced MMN amplitudes reflect altered predictive coding in schizophrenia.

    “Furthermore, several studies have developed new paradigms to investigate whether reduced MMN amplitudes reflect altered predictive coding in schizophrenia (25–27).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lukoff D, Nuechterlein KH, Ventura J, 1986 Manual for the expanded brief psychiatric rating scale. Schizophrenia Bulletin 12, 594– 602.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCleery, A., Mathalon, D. H., Wynn, J. K., Roach, B. J., Hellemann, G. S., Marder, S. R., & Green, M. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
McCleery, Amanda
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2019-01-15
Volume
49
Issue
07
Pages
1195-1206
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2908547723
Cited by
35
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH096682, K23MH108829)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
schizophrenia, mismatch negativity, memory traces, prediction error, test-retest reliability, auditory event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mental Recall, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Young Adult

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