The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Brain Generators Implicated in the Processing of Auditory Stimulus Deviance: A Topographic Event‐Related Potential Study
Abstract
The neurophysiological mechanisms underlying mismatch negativity (MMN) can be inferred from an examination of some of the brain generators involved in the process of this event‐related potential (ERP) component. ERPs were recorded in two studies in which the subjects were involved in a selective dichotic listening task. Subjects were required to silently count rare stimuli deviating in pitch from a sequence of standard stimuli in one ear, while ignoring all the stimuli (standards and deviants) delivered randomly to the other ear. The results showed that, in all cases, the negative wave elicited by the deviant stimuli showed the highest amplitudes over the right hemiscalp irrespective of the ear of stimulation or the direction of attention. Scalp radial current density analysis showed that this asymmetric potential distribution could be attributed to the sum of activities of two sets of neural generators: one temporal, located in the vicinity of the primary auditory cortex, predominantly activated in the hemisphere contralateral to the ear of stimulation, and the other frontal, involving mainly the right hemisphere. The results are discussed in light of Näätänen's model: we suggest the dissociation of two functional processes on the basis of activity of distinct brain areas: a sensory memory mechanism related to the temporal generators, and an automatic attention‐switching process related to the frontal generators.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
James, W. (1913) · Henry Holt and Company eBooks · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,226
Näätänen, R., & Picton, T. (1987) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x · Cited by 3,321
Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping
Perrin, F., Pernier, J., Bertrand, O., & Echallier, J. F. (1989) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(89)90180-6 · Cited by 2,706
Self-citationEarly selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted
Näätänen, R., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Mäntysalo, S. (1978) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(78)90006-9 · Cited by 2,706
A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect
Mesulam, M. ‐. (1981) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410100402 · Cited by 2,498
Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook
Morgan, J. P. (2005) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2005.s329 · Cited by 2,388
Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention
Posner, M., Walker, J., Friedrich, F., & Rafal, R. (1984) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.04-07-01863.1984 · Cited by 2,191
Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man
Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., & Hillyard, S. A. (1975) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(75)90263-1 · Cited by 2,088
Näätänen, R. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00078407 · Cited by 1,673
Kimmel, H. D., van Olst, E. H., & Orlebeke, J. F. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003171409 · Cited by 1,113
Cited by
The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review
Näätänen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K. (2007) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.026 · Cited by 2,644
The mismatch negativity: a review of underlying mechanisms
Garrido, M. I., Kilner, J. M., Stephan, K. E., & Friston, K. J. (2009) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.029 · Cited by 1,441
“…auditory sequence (Näätänen, 1992), and that a temporo-prefrontal network, comparing the current sensory input with a memory trace of previous stimuli, is responsible for generating this response at the scalp level (Giard et al., 1990; Rinne et al., 2000; Opitz et al., 2002; Doeller et al., 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe novelty P3: an event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty
Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y. M., & Gaeta, H. (2001) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00019-7 · Cited by 1,282
Duncan, C. C., Barry, R. J., Connolly, J. F., Fischer, C., Michie, P. T., Näätänen, R., Polich, J., Reinvang, I., & Van Petten, C. (2009) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.07.045 · Cited by 1,191
Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: an MEG study
Maess, B., Koelsch, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2001) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/87502 · Cited by 968
Metadata
- Authors
- Giard, M., Perrin, F., Pernier, J., & Bouchet, P.
- Venue
- Psychophysiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1990-11
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 627-640
- ISSN
- 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8986
- OpenAlex
- W2002537496
- Cited by
- 872
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 13.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Brain Generators Implicated in the Processing of Auditory Stimulus Deviance: A Topographic Event‐Related Potential Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb03184.x
- The paper
- Giard, M., Perrin, F., Pernier, J., & Bouchet, P. (1990). Brain Generators Implicated in the Processing of Auditory Stimulus Deviance: A Topographic Event‐Related Potential Study. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb03184.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
