The functional neuroanatomy of novelty processing: integrating ERP and fMRI results
Abstract
Recent research indicates that non-tonal novel events, deviating from an ongoing auditory environment, elicit a positive event-related potential (ERP), the novel P3. Although a variety of studies examined the neural network engaged in novelty detection, there is no complete picture of the underlying brain mechanisms. This experiment investigated these neural mechanisms by combining ERP and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Hemodynamic and electrophysiological responses were measured in the same subjects using the same experimental design. The ERP analysis revealed a novel P3, while the fMRI responses showed bilateral foci in the middle part of the superior temporal gyrus. When subjects attended to the novel stimuli only identifiable novel sounds evoked a N4-like negativity. Subjects showing a strong N4-effect had additional fMRI activation in right prefrontal cortex (rPFC) as compared to subjects with a weak N4-effect. This pattern of results suggests that novelty processing not only includes the registration of deviancy but may also lead to a fast access and retrieval of related semantic concepts. The fMRI activation pattern suggests that the superior temporal gyrus is involved in novelty detection, whereas accessing and retrieving semantic concepts related to novel sounds additionally engages the rPFC.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Neural signals marking gross violations of expectations have long been reported using EEG and fMRI.
“One indication that the brain may compute SPEs is that neural signals marking gross violations of expectations have long been reported, particularly using both EEG (Courchesne et al., 1975; Fabiani and Friedman, 1995) or in combination with fMRI (Opitz et al., 1999; Strobel et al., 2008).”
From States versus Rewards: Dissociable Neural Prediction Error Signals Underlying Model-Based and Model-Free Reinforcement Learning (2010) · cites this paper as Opitz et al., 1999
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 195
- Authors
- Opitz, B.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Opitz, B.
- ORCID
- Opitz, B.
- Venue
- Cerebral Cortex
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-06-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 379-391
- ISSN
- 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2199
- OpenAlex
- W1995989922
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- novelty processing, event-related potentials, superior temporal gyrus, right prefrontal cortex, auditory deviance
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Attention, Brain, Electroencephalography, Environment, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net
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