Back

Mismatch Negativity and General Cognitive Ability - A Meta-Analysis

Noeth, T.; Euler, M.; Hilger, K.

2026-08-11 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.08.06.743003 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Intelligence or general cognitive ability (GCA) is fundamental to human behavior and cognition. It impacts important life outcomes like educational success and even health and longevity have been related to differences in GCA. Understanding the biological basis of such individual variations presents a crucial goal of neuroscience. The mismatch negativity (MMN) is an event-related brain potential that can be measured when--within a series of frequent standard stimuli, rare deviants are presented--and is suggested to reflect conscious (active) or unconscious (passive) detection processes of the brain. Importantly, variations in MMN amplitude and latency have been linked to differences in GCA. Yet findings vary considerably. This preregistered meta-analysis provides a comprehensive and structured overview of the current state of research. Following the study selection process in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, and the rating of study design quality with the Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device for Individual Difference Research (DIAD-ID), the association between GCA and MMN amplitude and latency was examined in 695 healthy adults across 13 included studies. The estimated across-sample associations between MMN and GCA were small, but significant (MMN amplitude-GCA: r = -0.08, MMN latency-GCA: r = -0.13; p < 0.05) and moderators were identified. Between-sample heterogeneity was moderate, with no evidence of publication bias. Our findings suggest that higher cognitive ability is associated with slightly stronger and faster MMN responses. However, the low estimated across-sample effect sizes and the small number of included studies also highlight the need for more research.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.