Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions | Lightning Talks

Adaptation and Mismatch Negativity (MMN) in Dyslexia: Comparing First vs. Subsequent Repetitions in a Roving EEG Paradigm with Minimized Expectations

There is a Poster PDF for this presentation, but you must be a current member or registered to attend SNL 2023 to view it. Please go to your Account Home page to register.

Poster B63 in Poster Session B, Tuesday, October 24, 3:30 - 5:15 pm CEST, Espace Vieux-Port
This poster is part of the Sandbox Series.

Brian W. L. Wong1,2, Lucas Yiu Hei Chan1, Shuting Huo1,3, Urs Maurer1,4,5; 1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2BCBL, Basque Center on Brain, Language and Cognition, 3The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 4Brain and Mind Institute, 5Centre for Developmental Psychology

Recent research has implicated the implicit learning of statistical regularity as a potential factor contributing to the reading deficit and poorer tone discrimination performance in individuals with dyslexia (Jaffe-Dax et al., 2015). These deficits are characterized by weaker neural adaptation compared to typically developing readers, suggesting impaired general processing in forming short-term representations of stimulus consistency (Perrachione et al., 2016). In addition, inconsistent findings have been observed regarding the amplitude differences of mismatch negativity (MMN) between individuals with and without dyslexia (e.g., Baldeweg et al., 1999; Meng et al., 2005). Although neural adaptation is believed to contribute to MMN (Jääskeläinen et al., 2004), these two processes have been examined in separate bodies of literature, leaving their relationship in children with and without dyslexia unclear. To address this issue, 42 children with Chinese dyslexia (dyslexia group; fourth to sixth grade; 9–13 years old; 17 females) and 26 children without dyslexia (control group; fourth to sixth grade; 10–12 years old; 17 females) participated in an EEG roving paradigm experiment with continuous pure tone stimuli. Importantly, the stimuli were carefully arranged to minimize expectations and isolate pure adaptation effects. The peak amplitudes of components related to the adaptation effect, including P1a, P1b, and N250, as well as the amplitudes of MMN, P3a, and late MMN, were extracted. By tracing the amplitudes along the first ten tones in each local train, we found that both groups exhibited similar adaptation effects characterized by an initial amplitude decrease followed by a continuous increase of P1a and P1b. However, a continuous amplitude decrease (more negative) of N250 was observed across the ten tones in both groups. We then examined how the initial adaptation (i.e., the peak amplitude difference between the deviants and the 2nd tones) and subsequent adaptation (i.e., the peak amplitude difference between the 2nd tones and the final tones) in each P1a, P1b, and N250 time window were related to MMN, P3a, and late MMN. Preliminary data analyses revealed that the correlation between the late MMN and subsequent adaptation of N250 was significantly different between the two groups. These findings suggest that the main differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic children lie in late MMN rather than MMN, supporting the notion that dyslexia involves impairments in later auditory processing stages (Halliday et al., 2014). Importantly, the present study highlights that although the adaptation patterns are similar between children with and without dyslexia, the relationship between adaptation effects and the late MMN component can differ even when expectations are minimized.

Topic Areas: Disorders: Developmental, Language Development/Acquisition

SNL Account Login

Forgot Password?
Create an Account