Assessing mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3b within‐individual sensitivity — A comparison between the local–global paradigm and two specialized oddball sequences

Abstract Mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3b are well known for their clinical utility. There exists no gold standard, however, for acquiring them as EEG markers of consciousness in clinical settings. This may explain why the within‐individual sensitivity of MMN/P3b paradigms is often quite poor and why seemingly identical EEG markers can behave differently across Disorders of consciousness (DoC) studies. Here, we compare two traditional paradigms for MMN or P3b assessment with the recently more popular local–global paradigm that promises to assess MMN and P3b orthogonally within one oddball sequence. All three paradigms were administered to healthy participants (N = 15) with concurrent EEG. A clear MMN and local effect were found for 15/15 participants. The P3b and global effect were found for 14/15 and 13/15 participants, respectively. There were no systematic differences between the global effect and P3b. Indeed, P3b amplitude was highly correlated across paradigms. The local effect differed clearly from the MMN, however. It occurred earlier than MMN and was followed by a much more prominent P3a. The peak latencies and amplitudes were also not correlated across paradigms. Caution should therefore be exercised when comparing the local effect and MMN across studies. We conclude that the within‐individual MMN sensitivity is adequate for both the local–global and a dedicated MMN paradigm. The within‐individual sensitivity of P3b was lower than expected for both the local–global and a dedicated P3b paradigm, which may explain the often‐low sensitivity of P3b paradigms in patients with DoC.