The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neural Mechanisms of Involuntary Attention to Acoustic Novelty and Change
Abstract
Behavioral and event-related brain potential (ERP) measures were used to elucidate the neural mechanisms of involuntary engagement of attention by novelty and change in the acoustic environment. The behavioral measures consisted of the reaction time (RT) and performance accuracy (hit rate) in a forced-choice visual RT task where subjects were to discriminate between odd and even numbers. Each visual stimulus was preceded by an irrelevant auditory stimulus, which was randomly either a “standard” tone (80%), a slightly, higher “deviant” tone (10%), or a natural, “novel” sound (10%). Novel sounds prolonged the RT to successive visual stimuli by 17 msec as compared with the RT to visual stimuli that followed standard tones. Deviant tones, in turn, decreased the hit rate but did not significantly affect the RT. In the ERPs to deviant tones, the mismatch negativity (MMN), peaking at 150 msec, and a second negativity, peaking at 400 msec, could be observed. Novel sounds elicited an enhanced N1, with a probable overlap by the MMN, and a large positive P3a response with two different subcomponents: an early centrally dominant P3a, peaking at 230 msec, and a late P3a, peaking at 315 msec with a right-frontal scalp maximum. The present results suggest the involvement of two different neural mechanisms in triggering involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change: a transient-detector mechanism activated by novel sounds and reflected in the N1 and a stimulus-change detector mechanism activated by deviant tones and novel sounds and reflected in the MMN. The observed differential distracting effects by slightly deviant tones and widely deviant novel sounds support the notion of two separate mechanisms of involuntary attention.
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
Näätänen, R., & Picton, T. (1987) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x · Cited by 3,321
Self-citationA cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect
Mesulam, M. ‐. (1981) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.410100402 · Cited by 2,498 · cited 1×
“First, the right-frontal dominance in the late P3a scalp distribution observed in the present experiment agrees with andings suggesting the involvement of right-frontal areas in the reorientation of attention (Fuster, 1989; Mesulam, 1981).”
ResultInvoluntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030 · Cited by 2,487
Decreased response to novel stimuli after prefrontal lesions in man
Knight, R. T. (1984) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section · doi:10.1016/0168-5597(84)90016-9 · Cited by 828
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 · Cited by 637
Self-citationCourchesne, E. (1978) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(78)90291-2 · Cited by 383
Cited by
Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b
Polich, J. (2007) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 · Cited by 7,919
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
Self-citationThe 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
“j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c l i n p h the MMN is assumed to reflect an automatic auditory change detection process that triggers a switch in the focus of attention (Escera et al., 1998, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodThe 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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 590-604
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2117691117
- Cited by
- 917
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 9.69
- 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: Neural Mechanisms of Involuntary Attention to Acoustic Novelty and Change. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089892998562997
- The paper
- Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R. (1998). Neural Mechanisms of Involuntary Attention to Acoustic Novelty and Change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998562997
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.