From psychophysiology to brain imaging: forty-five years MMN history of investigating acoustic change sensitivity

Abstract

Forty-five years have passed since the first publication of the mismatch negativity (MMN) event-related brain potential (ERP) component. The first 10 years of research hardly gained any particular attention of the scientific community interested in acoustic perception. Debates on the nature of sensation versus perception were going on, and the technical possibilities to record ERPs, called in general evoked potentials, were very limited. Subtle changes in pure tone frequency or intensity giving rise to the MMN component were first investigated in humans. The background of the theoretical model developed by Risto Näätänen was the orientation reaction model of E.N. Sokolov published in 1963 so that the MMN was seen first as an electrophysiological correlate of auditory change detection. This fundamental ability of the auditory system seen as crucial for survival led to the development of the first animal model of the MMN (Csépe et al. in Clin Neurophysiol 66: 571–578, 1987). Indeed, it was confirmed that the MMN was the brain correlate of subtle changes detected that might alert to potential threats in the environment and direct the behavioral orientation. The investigations performed after 2000 introduced complex models and more sophisticated methods, both in animal and human studies, so that the MMN method was on the way to become a tool on the first place and not the main goal of research. This approach was further strengthened by the increasing number of studies on different clinical populations aiming at future applications. The aim of our review is to describe and redefine what the MMN may reflect in auditory perception and to show why and how this brain correlate of changes in the auditory scene can be used as a valuable tool in cognitive neuroscience research. We refer to publications selected to underly the argument the MMN cannot be classified anymore as a sign of simple change detection and not all the indicators used to confirm how genuine the MMN elicited by variations of tones are valid for those to speech contrasts. We provide a fresh view on the broadly used MMN models, provided by some influential publications as well as on the unwritten history of MMN research aiming to give revised picture on what the MMN may truly reflect. We show how the focus and terminology of the MMN research have changed and what kind of misunderstandings and seemingly contradictive results prevent the MMN community to accept a generally usable cognitive model.