Do video sounds interfere with auditory event-related potentials?

Article

Abstract

To make the electroencephalogram (EEG) recording procedure more tolerable, listeners have been allowed in some experiments to watch an audible video while their auditory P1, NI, P2, and mismatch negativity (MMN) event-related potentials (ERPs) to experimental sounds have been measured. However, video sounds may degrade auditory ERPs to experimental sounds. This concern was tested with 19 adults who were instructed to ignore standard and deviant tones presented through headphones while they watched a video with the soundtrack audible in one condition and silent in the other. Video sound impaired the size, latency, and split-half reliability of the MMN, and it decreased the size of the P2. However, it had little effect on the P1 or N1 or on the split-half reliability of the P1—N1—P2 waveform, which was significantly more reliable than the MMN waveform regardless of whether the video sound was on or off. The impressive reliability of the P1 and N1 components allows for the use of video sound during EEG recording, and they may prove useful for assessing auditory processing in listeners who cannot tolerate long testing sessions.

References

  1. Bellis, T. J., Nicol, T., &Kraus, N. (2000). Ageing affects hemispheric asymmetry in the neural representation of speech sounds.Journal of Neuroscience,20, 791–797.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cruise, T. (Producer), &Woo, L. (Director) (2000).Mission impossible 2 [Video]. United States: Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar
  3. Escera, C., &Grau, C. (1996). Short-term replicability of the mismatch negativity.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,100, 549–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Escera, C., Yago, E., Polo, M. D., &Grau, C. (2000). The individual replicability of the mismatch negativity at short and long inter-stimulus intervals.Clinical Neurophysiology,111, 546–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kathmann, N., Frodl-Bauch, T., &Hegerl, U. (1999). Stability of the mismatch negativity under different stimulus and attention conditions.Clinical Neurophysiology,110, 317–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Korpilahti, P., Krause, C. M., Holopainen, I., &Lang, A. H. (2001). Early and late mismatch negativity elicited by words and speech-like stimuli in children.Brain & Language,76, 332–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kraus, N., McGee, T., Carrell, T. D., &Sharma, A. (1995). Neurophysiologic bases of speech discrimination.Ear & Hearing,16, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kraus, N., McGee, T., Micco, A., Sharma, A., Carrell, T., &Nicol, T. (1993). Mismatch negativity in school-age children to speech stimuli that are just perceptibly different.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,88, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lang, A. H., Eorola, O., Korpilahti, P., Holopainen, I., Salo, S., &Aaltonen, O. (1995). Practical issues in the clinical application of mismatch negativity.Ear & Hearing,16, 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McArthur, G. M., &Bishop, D. V. M. (2001). Auditory perceptual processing in people with reading and oral language impairments: Current issues and recommendations.Dyslexia,7, 150–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McArthur, G. M., &Bishop, D. V. M. (2002). Event-related potentials reflect individual differences in age-invariant auditory skills.Neuro-Report,13, 1079–1082.Google Scholar
  12. McGee, T., Kraus, N., &Nicol, T. (1997). Is it really a mismatch negativity? An assessment of methods for determining response validity in individual subjects.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,104, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Neurosoft, Inc. (1999).SCAN: User guide. Sterling, VA: Neurosoft, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Novitski, N., Ahlo, K., Korsyukov, O., Carlson, S., Martinkauppi, S., Escera, C., Rinne, T., Aronen, H. J., &Näätänen, R. (2001). Effects of acoustic gradient noise from functional magnetic resonance imaging on auditory processing as reflected by event-related potentials.NeuroImage,14, 244–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pang, E. W., &Taylor, M. J. (2000). Tracking the development of the Nl from age 3 to adulthood: An examination of speech and non-speech stimuli.Clinical Neurophysiology,111, 388–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park, N. (Producer), &Lord, P. (Director) (2000).Chicken run [Video]. Bristol, U.K.: Aardman Animations, Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Pekkonen, E., Rinne, T., &Näätänen, R. (1995). Variability and replicability of the mismatch negativity.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,96, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma, A., Kraus, N., McGee, T., Carrell, T., &Nicol, T. (1993). Acoustic versus phonetic representation of speech as reflected by the mismatch negativity event-related potential.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,88, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sinkkonen, J., &Tervaniemi, M. (2000). Towards optimal recording and analysis of the mismatch negativity.Audiology & Neuro-Otology,5, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tervaniemi, M., Lehtokoski, A., Sinkkonen, J., Virtanen, J., Ilmoniemi, R. J., &Näätänen, R. (1999). Test—retest reliability of mismatch negativity for duration, frequency and intensity changes.Clinical Neurophysiology,110, 1388–1393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Todd, J., Michie, P. T., &Jablensky, A. V. (2001). Do loudness cues contribute to duration mismatch negativity reduction in schizophrenia?NeuroReport,12, 4069–4073.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Uwer, R., &Suchodoletz, W. von (2000). Stability of mismatch negativities in children.Clinical Neurophysiology,111, 45–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. McArthur
    • 1
  • D. V. M. Bishop
    • 1
  • M. Proudfoot
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations