Skip to content

The Magnetic Acoustic Change Complex and Mismatch Field: A Comparison of Neurophysiological Measures of Auditory Discrimination

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • Shu Yau
  • Fabrice Bardy
  • Paul F Sowman
  • Jon P Brock
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)14-27
Number of pages14
JournalAIMS Neuroscience
Issue number1
Early online date10 Feb 2017
DateAccepted/In press - 8 Feb 2017
DateE-pub ahead of print - 10 Feb 2017
DatePublished (current) - Mar 2017


The Acoustic Change Complex (ACC), a P1-N1-P2-like event-related response to changes in a continuous sound, has been suggested as a reliable, objective, and efficient test of auditory discrimination. We used magnetoencephalography to compare the magnetic ACC (mACC) to the more widely used mismatch field (MMF). Brain responses of 14 adults were recorded during mACC and MMF paradigms involving the same pitch and vowel changes in a synthetic vowel sound. Analyses of peak amplitudes revealed a significant interaction between stimulus and paradigm: for the MMF, the response was greater for vowel changes than for pitch changes, whereas, for the mACC, the pattern was reversed. A similar interaction was observed for the signal to noise ratio and single-trial analysis of individual participants’ responses showed that the MMF to Pitch changes was elicited less consistently than the other three responses. Results support the view that the ACC/mACC is a robust and efficient measure of simple auditory discrimination, particularly when researchers or clinicians are interested in the responses of individual listeners. However, the differential sensitivity of the two paradigms to the same acoustic changes indicates that the mACC and MMF are indices of different aspects of auditory processing and should, therefore, be seen as complementary rather than competing neurophysiological measures.

    Research areas

  • Acoustic change complex, auditory discrimination, magnetoencephalography, mismatch field, mismatch negativity

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)4-00014

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via AIMS Press at Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 394 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups