Molly A Erickson1, Abigail Ruffle2, James M Gold2. 1. Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: merickson@mprc.umaryland.edu. 2. Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The observation that mismatch negativity (MMN) is consistently impaired in schizophrenia has generated considerable interest in the use of this biomarker as an index of disease risk and progression. Despite such enthusiasm, a number of issues remain unresolved regarding the nature of MMN impairment. The present study expands upon an earlier meta-analysis of MMN impairment in schizophrenia by examining impairment across a range of clinical presentations, as well as across experimental parameters. METHODS: One hundred one samples of schizophrenia patients were included in the present study, including first-episode (n = 13), chronic (n = 13), and mixed-stage (n = 75) samples. Additionally, MMN was examined in three related conditions: bipolar disorder (n = 9), unaffected first-degree relatives (n = 8), and clinical high risk (n = 16). RESULTS: We found that MMN impairment 1) likely reflects a vulnerability to disease progression in clinical high-risk populations rather than a genetic risk for the condition; 2) is largely unrelated to duration of illness after the first few years of illness, indicating that impairment is not progressive throughout the life span; 3) is present in bipolar disorder, albeit to a lesser degree than in schizophrenia; and 4) is not modulated by experimental parameters such as magnitude of change between standard and deviant tones or frequency of deviant tones but may be modulated by attentional demands. CONCLUSIONS: Such findings lay the foundation for a better understanding of the nature of MMN impairment in schizophrenia, as well as its potential as a clinically useful biomarker.
BACKGROUND: The observation that mismatch negativity (MMN) is consistently impaired in schizophrenia has generated considerable interest in the use of this biomarker as an index of disease risk and progression. Despite such enthusiasm, a number of issues remain unresolved regarding the nature of MMN impairment. The present study expands upon an earlier meta-analysis of MMN impairment in schizophrenia by examining impairment across a range of clinical presentations, as well as across experimental parameters. METHODS: One hundred one samples of schizophreniapatients were included in the present study, including first-episode (n = 13), chronic (n = 13), and mixed-stage (n = 75) samples. Additionally, MMN was examined in three related conditions: bipolar disorder (n = 9), unaffected first-degree relatives (n = 8), and clinical high risk (n = 16). RESULTS: We found that MMN impairment 1) likely reflects a vulnerability to disease progression in clinical high-risk populations rather than a genetic risk for the condition; 2) is largely unrelated to duration of illness after the first few years of illness, indicating that impairment is not progressive throughout the life span; 3) is present in bipolar disorder, albeit to a lesser degree than in schizophrenia; and 4) is not modulated by experimental parameters such as magnitude of change between standard and deviant tones or frequency of deviant tones but may be modulated by attentional demands. CONCLUSIONS: Such findings lay the foundation for a better understanding of the nature of MMN impairment in schizophrenia, as well as its potential as a clinically useful biomarker.
Authors: Veronica B Perez; Scott W Woods; Brian J Roach; Judith M Ford; Thomas H McGlashan; Vinod H Srihari; Daniel H Mathalon Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Judith M Ford; Brian J Roach; Ryan M Miller; Connie C Duncan; Ralph E Hoffman; Daniel H Mathalon Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Madiha Shaikh; Lucia Valmaggia; Matthew R Broome; Anirban Dutt; Julia Lappin; Fern Day; James Woolley; Paul Tabraham; Muriel Walshe; Louise Johns; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Oliver Howes; Robin M Murray; Philip McGuire; Elvira Bramon Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Anthony J Rissling; Makoto Miyakoshi; Catherine A Sugar; David L Braff; Scott Makeig; Gregory A Light Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Arnim Johannes Gaebler; Jana Zweerings; Jan Willem Koten; Andrea Anna König; Bruce I Turetsky; Mikhail Zvyagintsev; Klaus Mathiak Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-01-04 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Holly K Hamilton; Deepak C D'Souza; Judith M Ford; Brian J Roach; Naomi S Kort; Kyung-Heup Ahn; Savita Bhakta; Mohini Ranganathan; Daniel H Mathalon Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Junghee Lee; Eric A Reavis; Stephen A Engel; Lori L Altshuler; Mark S Cohen; David C Glahn; Keith H Nuechterlein; Jonathan K Wynn; Michael F Green Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Amanda McCleery; Daniel H Mathalon; Jonathan K Wynn; Brian J Roach; Gerhard S Hellemann; Stephen R Marder; Michael F Green Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 7.723