scholarly journals Unity and diversity in working memory load: Evidence for the separability of the executive functions updating and inhibition using machine learning

2018 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. 163-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Krumpe ◽  
Christian Scharinger ◽  
Wolfgang Rosenstiel ◽  
Peter Gerjets ◽  
Martin Spüler
NeuroImage ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 217 ◽  
pp. 116895
Author(s):  
Hamdi Eryilmaz ◽  
Kevin F. Dowling ◽  
Dylan E. Hughes ◽  
Anais Rodriguez-Thompson ◽  
Alexandra Tanner ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Krumpe ◽  
Christian Scharinger ◽  
Wolfgang Rosenstiel ◽  
Peter Gerjets ◽  
Martin Spüler

AbstractObjectiveAccording to current theoretical models of working memory (WM), executive functions (EFs) like updating, inhibition and shifting play an important role in WM functioning. The models state that EFs highly correlate with each other but also have some individual variance which makes them separable processes. Since this theory has mostly been substantiated with behavioral data like reaction time and the ability to execute a task correctly, the aim of this paper is to find evidence for diversity (unique properties) of the EFs updating and inhibition in neural correlates of EEG data by means of using brain-computer interface (BCI) methods as a research tool. To highlight the benefit of this approach we compare this new methodology to classical analysis approaches.MethodsAn existing study has been reinvestigated by applying neurophysiological analysis in combination with support vector machine (SVM) classification on recorded electroenzephalography (EEG) data to determine the separability and variety of the two EFs updating and inhibition on a single trial basis.ResultsThe SVM weights reveal a set of distinct features as well as a set of shared features for the two EFs updating and inhibition in the theta and the alpha band power.SignificanceIn this paper we find evidence that correlates for unity and diversity of EFs can be found in neurophysiological data. Machine learning approaches reveal shared but also distinct properties for the EFs. This study shows that using methods from brain-computer interface (BCI) research, like machine learning, as a tool for the validation of psychological models and theoretical constructs is a new approach that is highly versatile and could lead to many new insights.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Valentin ◽  
Maximilian Harkotte ◽  
Tzvetan Popov

AbstractThe application of machine learning algorithms for decoding psychological constructs based on neural data is becoming increasingly popular. However, there is a need for methods that allow to interpret trained decoding models, as a step towards bridging the gap between theory-driven cognitive neuroscience and data-driven decoding approaches. The present study demonstrates grouped model reliance as a model-agnostic permutation-based approach to this problem. Grouped model reliance indicates the extent to which a trained model relies on conceptually related groups of variables, such as frequency bands or regions of interest in electroencephalographic (EEG) data. As a case study to demonstrate the method, random forest and support vector machine models were trained on within-participant single-trial EEG data from a Sternberg working memory task. Participants were asked to memorize a sequence of digits (0–9), varying randomly in length between one, four and seven digits, where EEG recordings for working memory load estimation were taken from a 3-second retention interval. Present results confirm previous findings in so far, as both random forest and support vector machine models relied on alpha-band activity in most subjects. However, as revealed by further analyses, patterns in frequency and particularly topography varied considerably between individuals, pointing to more pronounced inter-individual differences than reported previously.Author summaryModern machine learning algorithms currently receive considerable attention for their predictive power in neural decoding applications. However, there is a need for methods that make such predictive models interpretable. In the present work, we address the problem of assessing which aspects of the input data a trained model relies upon to make predictions. We demonstrate the use of grouped model-reliance as a generally applicable method for interpreting neural decoding models. Illustrating the method on a case study, we employed an experimental design in which a comparably small number of participants (10) completed a large number of trials (972) over multiple electroencephalography (EEG) recording sessions from a Sternberg working memory task. Trained decoding models consistently relied on alpha frequency activity, which is in line with existing research on the relationship between neural oscillations and working memory. However, our analyses also indicate large inter-individual variability with respect to the relation between activity patterns and working memory load in frequency and topography. Taken together, we argue that grouped model reliance provides a useful tool to better understand the workings of (sometimes otherwise black-box) decoding models.


Author(s):  
Angela A. Manginelli ◽  
Franziska Geringswald ◽  
Stefan Pollmann

When distractor configurations are repeated over time, visual search becomes more efficient, even if participants are unaware of the repetition. This contextual cueing is a form of incidental, implicit learning. One might therefore expect that contextual cueing does not (or only minimally) rely on working memory resources. This, however, is debated in the literature. We investigated contextual cueing under either a visuospatial or a nonspatial (color) visual working memory load. We found that contextual cueing was disrupted by the concurrent visuospatial, but not by the color working memory load. A control experiment ruled out that unspecific attentional factors of the dual-task situation disrupted contextual cueing. Visuospatial working memory may be needed to match current display items with long-term memory traces of previously learned displays.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin A. Maloney ◽  
Evan F. Risko ◽  
Derek Besner ◽  
Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document