Background: In comparison to controlled (attentional) processing, relatively little is known about the age-related changes of the earlier (preattentive) processes. An event-related potential (ERP) index of preattentive (automatic) visual processing, the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) is a good candidate for analyzing age-related differences in the automatic processing of visual events. Objective: So far results concerning age-related changes in vMMN have been equivocal. Our aim was to develop a method resulting in a reliable vMMN in a paradigm short enough to use in the applied field. Methods: We investigated an older (mean age: 66.4 years, n = 15) and a younger (mean age: 22.4 years, n = 15) group of healthy women. ERPs were obtained for checkerboard onset patterns in a passive oddball condition (during which participants performed a tracking task). One of the checkerboards was frequent (standard; p = 0.8), and the other was rare (deviant; p = 0.2). Results: vMMN emerged over posterior locations in the latency range of 100–300 ms in both age groups. The amplitude of the earlier part of the vMMN was similar in the older and the younger participants, but latency was longer in the older group. The later part of the vMMN was slightly diminished in the elderly. Conclusion: Automatic detection of violated sequential regularities, reflected by the vMMN, emerged in the two age groups (earlier vMMN). However, detection of stimulus change, a preattentive visual process delayed in the elderly, and identification of the specific change was compromised in the older participants.

Keywords:
Aging, Visual mismatch negativity, Event-related brain potential, Visual perception
1.
Erel H, Levy DA: Orienting of visual attention in aging. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016; 69: 357–380.
2.
Owsley C: Aging and vision. Vision Res 2011; 51: 1610–1622.
3.
Salthouse TA: Adult Cognition. An Experimental Psychology of Human Aging. New York, Springer, 1982.
4.
Hasher L, Stoltzfus ER, Zacks RT, Rympa B: Age and inhibition. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1991; 17: 163–169.
5.
Mazza V, Brignani D: Electrophysiological advances on multiple object processing in aging. Front Aging Neurosci 2016; 8: 46.
6.
Kok A: Age-related changes in involuntary and voluntary attention as reflected in components of the event-related potential (ERP). Biol Psychol 2000; 54: 107–143.
7.
Fishman YI: The mechanism and meaning of the mismatch negativity. Brain Topogr 2014; 27: 500–526.
8.
Näätänen R, Kujala T, Winkler I: Auditory processing that leads to conscious perception: a unique window to central auditory processing opened by the mismatch negativity and related responses. Psychophysiology 2011; 48: 4–22.
9.
Cheng C-H, Hsu W-Y, Lin Y-Y: Effects of physiological aging on mismatch negativity: a meta-analysis. Int J Psychophysiol 2013; 90: 165–171.
10.
Czigler I: Visual mismatch negativity – violation of nonattended environmental regularities. J Psychophysiol 2007; 20: 224–230.
11.
Kimura M, Schroeger E, Czigler I: Visual mismatch negativity and its importance in visual cognitive sciences. Neuroreport 2011; 22: 669–673.
12.
Kremláček J, Kreegipuu K, Tales A, Astikainen P, Põldver N, Näätänen R, Stefanics G: Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN): A review and meta-analysis of studies in psychiatric and neurologic diseases. Cortex 2016; 80: 76–113.
13.
Stefanics G, Astikainen P, Czigler I: Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN): a prediction error signal in the visual modality. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 8: 1074.
14.
Lorenzo-López L, Amenedo E, Pazo-Alvarez P, Cadaveira F: Pre-attentive detection of motion direction changes in normal aging. Neuroreport 2004; 15: 2633–2636.
15.
Tales A, Troscianko T, Wilcock GK, Newton P, Butler SR: Age-related changes in the preattentional detection of visual change. Neuroreport 2002; 13: 969–972.
16.
Stothart G, Tales A, Kazanina N: Evoked potentials reveal age-related compensatory mechanisms in early visual processing. Neurobiol Aging 2013; 34: 1302–1308.
17.
Gaál ZA, Bodnár F, Czigler I: When elderly outperform young adults – integration in vision revealed by the visual mismatch negativity event-related component. Front Aging Neurosci 2017; 9: 5.
18.
Sulykos I, Czigler I, Gaál ZA: Visual mismatch negativity to vanishing parts of objects in younger and older adults. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0188929.
19.
Di Russo F, Martínez A, Sereno MI, Pitzalis S, Hillyard SA: Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential. Hum Brain Mapp 2002; 15: 95–111.
20.
Jeffreys DA, Axford JG: Source locations of pattern-specific components human visual evoked potentials. I, II. Exp Brain Res 1972; 16: 1–40.
21.
Bradley J, Urte R, O’Shea RP: We make predictions about eye of origin of visual input: visual mismatch negativity from binocular rivalry. J Vis 2015; 15: 9.
22.
File D, File B, Bodnár F, Sulykos I, Kecskés-Kovács K, Czigler I: Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) for low- and high-level deviances: a control study. Atten Percept Psychophys 2017; 79: 2153–2170.
23.
Kimura M, Ohira H, Schroeger E: Localizing sensory and cognitive systems for pre-attentive visual deviance detection: an sLORETA analysis of the data of Kimura et al. (2009). Neurosci Lett 2010; 485: 198–203.
24.
Čeponienė R, Westerfield M, Torki M, Townsend J: Modality-specificity of sensory aging in vision and audition: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Res 2015; 1215: 53–68.
25.
Stothart G, Tales A, Kazanina N: Double peaked P1 visual evoked potentials in healthy aging. Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125: 1471–1478.
26.
Wechsler D: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, ed 4 (WAIS IV). San Antonio, Pearson Assessment, 2008.
27.
Heslenfeld D: Visual mismatch negativity; in Polich J (ed): Detection of Change: Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings. Norwell, Kluwer, 2003, pp 41–60.
28.
Kimura M, Katayama J, Ohira H, Schröger E: Visual mismatch negativity: new evidence from the equiprobable paradigm. Psychophysiology 2009; 46: 402–409.
29.
Luck S: An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MIT, 2005.
30.
Bendixen A: Predictability effects in auditory scene analysis: a review. Front Neurosci 2014; 8: 60.
31.
Garrido MI, Kilner JM, Stephan KE, Friston KJ: The mismatch negativity: a review of underlying mechanisms. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 120: 453–463.
32.
Stefanics G, Kremlaček J, Czigler I: Visual mismatch negativity: a predictive coding way. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 666.
33.
Winkler I, Denham S, Mill R, Bohm TM, Bendixen A: Multistability in auditory stream segregation: a predictive coding view. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2012; 367: 1001–1012.
34.
Finkel D, Reynolds CA, McArdle JJ, Pedersen NL: Age change in processing speed as a leading indicator of cognitive aging. Psychol Aging 2007; 22: 558–568.
35.
Tales A, Butler S: Visual mismatch negativity highlights abnormal pre-attentive visual processing in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroreport 2006; 17: 887–890.
36.
Tales A, Haworth J, Wilcock G, Newton P, Butler S: Visual mismatch negativity highlights abnormal pre-attentive visual processing in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia: 2008; 46: 1224–1232.
37.
Stothart G, Kazanina N, Näätänen R, Haworth J, Tales A: Early visual evoked potentials and mismatch negativity in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis 2015; 44: 397–408.
38.
Kimura M, Katayama J, Murohashi H: Probability independent and dependent visual change detection. Psychophysiology 2006; 43: 180–189.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.