CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 637Neuroscience and Music PerceptionNeural dynamics and brain functionHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attentive novelty detection in humans is governed by pre-attentive sensory memory

Tiitinen, H., May, P., Reinikainen, K., Näätänen, R.·1994·Nature
DOI 10.1038/372090a0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Being able to detect unusual, possibly dangerous events in the environment is a fundamental ability that helps ensure the survival of biological organisms. Novelty detection requires a memory system that models (builds neural representations of) events in the environment, so that changes are detected because they violate the predictions of the model. The earliest physiologically measurable brain response to novel auditory stimuli is the mismatch negativity, MMN, a component of the event-related potential. It is elicited when a predictable series of unvarying stimuli is unexpectedly followed by a deviating stimulus. As the occurrence of MMN is not usually affected by the direction of attention, MMN reflects the operation of automatic sensory (echoic) memory, the earliest memory system that builds traces of the acoustic environment against which new stimuli can be compared. The dependence of attentive novelty detection on earlier, pre-attentive processes, however, has remained elusive. Previous, related studies seem to suggest a relationship between MMN and attentive processes, although no conclusive evidence has so far been shown. Here we address novelty detection in humans both on a physiological and behavioural level, and show how attentive novelty detection is governed by a pre-attentive sensory memory mechanism.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/372090a0

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 20 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology 199–218 (Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1967).
  2. Stevens, S. S. & Davis, H. Hearing 69–109 (Wiley, New York, 1966).
  3. Ahonen, A. I. et al. in Proc. Satell. Symp. Neurosci. Technol. 14th int. Conf. IEEE Engng Med. Biol. Soc. (eds Dittmar, A. & Froment, J. C.) 16–20 (Lyon, 1992).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 632

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tiitinen, H., May, P., Reinikainen, K., & Näätänen, R.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
ORCID
May, P.
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1994-11
Volume
372
Issue
6501
Pages
90-92
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/372090a0
OpenAlex
W2102614139
Cited by
637
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 21
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Keywords
novelty detection, mismatch negativity, echoic memory, attention, sound event detection, event-related potentials, automatic memory, prediction violation
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Attention, Auditory Cortex, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Reaction Time, Magnetoencephalography

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