Implementation of Integrated Mismatch Negativity in Differentiating Children with Specific Language Impairment

Abstract

Objective The study aimed to assess the use of Integrated Mismatch Negativity (MMNi) in differentiating children with specific language impairment (SLI) from a control group.

Design Six conditions were created using a 1,000-Hz standard stimulus with three deviants of 1,020, 1,050, or 1,100 Hz and two interstimulus intervals of 400 and 200 ms. Recordings were processed offline using NeuroScan Edit (NeuroScan, Texas, United States). Four time analysis points were chosen and the magnitude of the integrated deviant was compared with the 100 standard subaverages. Mismatch negativity (MMN) presence was determined when 10 or less of the standard subaverages were less than the deviant subaverage magnitude.

Study Participants A total of 18 children with SLI and 35 typical development children participated in the study.

Results Pearson chi-square test demonstrated that the proportion of MMN presence in the SLI group was not significantly different from the control group and it did not vary with condition. Two-way between-group analysis of variance confirmed that using 1,000 Hz standard, 1,050 Hz deviant, and 400 ms interstimulus interval was significantly different from the other conditions.

Conclusion MMNi does not serve as a tool for identifying children with SLI when using pure-tone stimuli. However, using different time analysis points with MMNi should be explored further, particularly with speech material.

Keywords

mismatch negativity - specific language impairment - identification

Funding

The work was supported by Action Research (Grant no. SP3425).

• References

• 1 Rosen S. Auditory processing in dyslexia and specific language impairment: is there a deficit? What is its nature? Does it explain anything?. J Phon 2003; 31: 509-527
• 2 Tager-Flusberg H. Neurodevelopmental Disorders. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1999: 332
• 3 Leonard LB. Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2000. 3. 133-135
• 4 Stollman MHP, van Velzen ECW, Simkens HMF, Snik AFM, van den Broek P. Assessment of auditory processing in 6-year-old language-impaired children. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (6) 303-311
• 5 Bishop DV. Using mismatch negativity to study central auditory processing in developmental language and literacy impairments: where are we, and where should we be going?. Psychol Bull 2007; 133 (4) 651-672
• 6 Bishop DVM, Hardiman MJ. Measurement of mismatch negativity in individuals: a study using single-trial analysis. Psychophysiology 2010; 47 (4) 697-705
• 7 McGee T, Kraus N, Nicol T. Is it really a mismatch negativity? An assessment of methods for determining response validity in individual subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 104 (4) 359-368
• 8 Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B. Integrated mismatch negativity (MMNi): a noise-free representation of evoked responses allowing single-point distribution-free statistical tests. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 104 (2) 143-150
• 9 Achim A. Signal detection in averaged evoked potentials: Monte Carlo comparison of the sensitivity of different methods. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995; 96 (6) 574-584
• 10 Wunderlich JL, Cone-Wesson BK. Effects of stimulus frequency and complexity on the mismatch negativity and other components of the cortical auditory-evoked potential. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109 (4) 1526-1537
• 11 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Newall P, Wheldall K, Beaman R, Dillon H. Effects of identification technique, extraction method, and stimulus type on mismatch negativity in adults and children. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (9) 616-632
• 12 Näätänen R. The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (1) 6-18
• 13 Recommended procedure: Pure-tone air-conduction and bone-conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking. British Society of Audiology; 2011. Available at: http://www.thebsa.org.uk/docs/Guidelines/BSA_RP_PTA_FINAL_24Sept11.Pdf . Accessed: October 4, 2011
• 14 British Society of Audiology. Recommended procedure for tympanometry. Br J Audiol 1992; 26 (4) 255-257
• 15 Bishop DVM 1989. Test for the Reception of Grammar (TROG), second edition. Medical Research Council, UK.
• 16 Semel E, Wiig EH, Secord WA 1995. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. Third Edition. The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace & Company, San Antonio.
• 17 Dunn LM, Dunn LM, Whetton C, Burley J 1997. British Picture Vocabulary Scale. Second Edition. Windsor, Berks: NFER-Nelson;
• 18 Raven JC. 1998. Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment;
• 19 Uwer R, Albrecht R, von Suchodoletz W. Automatic processing of tones and speech stimuli in children with specific language impairment. Dev Med Child Neurol 2002; 44 (8) 527-532
• 20 Korpilahti P, Lang HA. Auditory ERP components and mismatch negativity in dysphasic children. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 91 (4) 256-264
• 21 Holopainen IE, Korpilahti P, Juottonen K, Lang H, Sillanpää M. Attenuated auditory event-related potential (mismatch negativity) in children with developmental dysphasia. Neuropediatrics 1997; 28 (5) 253-256
• 22 Holopainen IE, Korpilahti P, Juottonen K, Lang H, Sillanpää M. Abnormal frequency mismatch negativity in mentally retarded children and in children with developmental dysphasia. J Child Neurol 1998; 13 (4) 178-183
• 23 Poeppel D. The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as “asymmetric sampling in time”. Speech Commun 2003; 41: 245-255