For helpful discussion and suggestions, the authors gratefully acknowledge Drs. William Hetrick, Hasker Davis, Deana Davalos, Patti Davies, and Benjamin Clegg. Technical assistance was provided by Janice Trew and Laura Engleman. This work was supported by the Wallace Research Foundation and the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (MH 64466).
Comparison of sensory gating to mismatch negativity and self-reported perceptual phenomena in healthy adults
Article first published online: 26 APR 2004
Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 604–612, July 2004
How to Cite
Kisley, M. A., Noecker, T. L. and Guinther, P. M. (2004), Comparison of sensory gating to mismatch negativity and self-reported perceptual phenomena in healthy adults. Psychophysiology, 41: 604–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00191.x
- Issue published online: 26 APR 2004
- Article first published online: 26 APR 2004
- (Received July 17, 2003; Accepted December 17, 2003)
- Auditory evoked potentials;
- Sensory gating;
- Auditory perception;
- Auditory stimulation
To better understand the possible functional significance of electrophysiological sensory gating measures, response suppression of midlatency auditory event related potential (ERP) components was compared to the mismatch negativity (MMN) and to self-rated indices of stimulus filtering and passive attention-switching phenomena in an age-restricted sample of healthy adults. P1 sensory gating, measured during a paired-click paradigm, was correlated with MMN amplitude, measured during an acoustic oddball paradigm (intensity deviation). Also, individuals that exhibited less robust P1 suppression endorsed higher rates of “perceptual modulation” difficulties, whereas component N1 suppression was more closely related to “over-inclusion” of irrelevant sounds into the focus of attention. These findings suggest that the ERP components investigated are not redundant, but correspond to distinct—possibly related—pre-attentive processing systems.