OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to study how well the auditory evoked magnetic fields (EF) reflect the behavioral discrimination of speech sounds in preschool children, and if they reveal the same information as simultaneously recorded evoked potentials (EP). METHODS: EFs and EPs were recorded in 11 preschool children (mean age 6 years 9 months) using an oddball paradigm with two sets of speech stimuli consisting both of one standard and two deviants. After the brain activity recording, children were tested on behavioural discrimination of the same stimuli presented in pairs. RESULTS: There was a mismatch negativity (MMN) calculated from difference curves and its magnetic counterpart MMNm measured from the original responses only to those deviants, which were behaviourally easiest to discriminate from the standards. In addition, EF revealed significant differences between the locations of the activation depending on the hemisphere and stimulus properties. CONCLUSIONS: EF, in addition to reflecting the sound-discrimination accuracy in a similar manner as EP, also reflected the spatial differences in activation of the temporal lobes. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that both EPs and EFs are feasible for investigating the neural basis of sound discrimination in young children. The recording of EFs with its high spatial resolution reveals information on the location of the activated neural sources.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to study how well the auditory evoked magnetic fields (EF) reflect the behavioral discrimination of speech sounds in preschool children, and if they reveal the same information as simultaneously recorded evoked potentials (EP). METHODS: EFs and EPs were recorded in 11 preschool children (mean age 6 years 9 months) using an oddball paradigm with two sets of speech stimuli consisting both of one standard and two deviants. After the brain activity recording, children were tested on behavioural discrimination of the same stimuli presented in pairs. RESULTS: There was a mismatch negativity (MMN) calculated from difference curves and its magnetic counterpart MMNm measured from the original responses only to those deviants, which were behaviourally easiest to discriminate from the standards. In addition, EF revealed significant differences between the locations of the activation depending on the hemisphere and stimulus properties. CONCLUSIONS: EF, in addition to reflecting the sound-discrimination accuracy in a similar manner as EP, also reflected the spatial differences in activation of the temporal lobes. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that both EPs and EFs are feasible for investigating the neural basis of sound discrimination in young children. The recording of EFs with its high spatial resolution reveals information on the location of the activated neural sources.