scholarly journals The Contribution of the Left Posterior Parietal Cortex to Proactive and Reactive Cognitive Control

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 608
Author(s):  
Brandon Ashinoff ◽  
Joy Geng ◽  
Foyzul Rahman ◽  
Caitlin Carruthers ◽  
Diana Maler ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan E. Pierce ◽  
Jennifer E. McDowell

Cognitive control is engaged to facilitate stimulus–response mappings for novel, complex tasks and supervise performance in unfamiliar, challenging contexts—processes supported by pFC, ACC, and posterior parietal cortex. With repeated task practice, however, the appropriate task set can be selected in a more automatic fashion with less need for top–down cognitive control and weaker activation in these brain regions. One model system for investigating cognitive control is the ocular motor circuitry underlying saccade production, with basic prosaccade trials (look toward a stimulus) and complex antisaccade trials (look to the mirror image location) representing low and high levels of cognitive control, respectively. Previous studies have shown behavioral improvements on saccade tasks after practice with contradictory results regarding the direction of functional MRI BOLD signal change. The current study presented healthy young adults with prosaccade and antisaccade trials in five mixed blocks with varying probability of each trial type (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% anti vs. pro) at baseline and posttest MRI sessions. Between the scans, participants practiced either the specific probability blocks used during testing or only a general 100% antisaccade block. Results indicated an overall reduction in BOLD activation within pFC, ACC, and posterior parietal cortex and across saccade circuitry for antisaccade trials. The specific practice group showed additional regions including ACC, insula, and thalamus with an activation decrease after practice, whereas the general practice group showed a little change from baseline in those clusters. These findings demonstrate that cognitive control regions recruited to support novel task behaviors were engaged less after practice, especially with exposure to mixed task contexts rather than a novel task in isolation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 2321-2325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Cattaneo ◽  
F. Rota ◽  
V. Walsh ◽  
T. Vecchi ◽  
J. Silvanto

Author(s):  
Takehiro Minamoto ◽  
Miyuki Azuma ◽  
Ken Yaoi ◽  
Aoi Ashizuka ◽  
Tastuya Mima ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilke Öztekin ◽  
Brian McElree ◽  
Bernhard P. Staresina ◽  
Lila Davachi

Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to identify regions involved in working memory (WM) retrieval. Neural activation was examined in two WM tasks: an item recognition task, which can be mediated by a direct-access retrieval process, and a judgment of recency task that requires a serial search. Dissociations were found in the activation patterns in the hippocampus and in the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) when the probe contained the most recently studied serial position (where a test probe can be matched to the contents of focal attention) compared to when it contained all other positions (where retrieval is required). The data implicate the hippocampus and the LIFG in retrieval from WM, complementing their established role in long-term memory. Results further suggest that the left posterior parietal cortex (LPPC) supports serial retrieval processes that are often required to recover temporal order information. Together, these data suggest that the LPPC, the LIFG, and the hippocampus collectively support WM retrieval. Critically, the reported findings support accounts that posit a distinction between representations maintained in and outside of focal attention, but are at odds with traditional dual-store models that assume distinct mechanisms for short- and long-term memory representations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S89-S89
Author(s):  
Anita Kwashie ◽  
Yizhou Ma ◽  
Andrew Poppe ◽  
Deanna Barch ◽  
Cameron Carter ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cognitive control mechanisms enable an individual to regulate, coordinate, and sequence thoughts and actions to obtain desired outcomes. A theory of control specialization posits that proactive control is necessary for anticipatory planning and goal maintenance and recruits sustained lateral prefrontal activity, whereas reactive control, essential for adapting to transient changes, marshals a more extensive brain network (Braver, 2012). Increased task errors and reduced frontoparietal activity in proactive contexts is observed in severe psychopathology, including schizophrenia (Poppe et al., 2016), leading to the prediction that patients rely on reactive control more when performing such tasks. However, evidence of primate prefrontal ‘switch’ neurons, active during both proactive and reactive contexts, challenges the notion that cognitive control relies on discrete processing networks (Blackman et al., 2016). To examine this contradiction, we sought to characterize the distinctiveness between proactive and reactive control in healthy and patient populations using the Dot Pattern Expectancy Task (DPX). We also examined if a bias toward proactive or reactive control predicted behavioral metrics. Methods 44 individuals with schizophrenia (SZ) and 50 matched healthy controls (HC) completed 4 blocks of the DPX during a 3-Tesla fMRI scan (Poppe et al., 2016). Participants followed the ‘A-then-X’ rule, in which they pressed one button whenever an A cue followed an X probe, and pressed a different button for any other non-target stimulus sequence. We examined bilateral frontoparietal ROIs from the literature for evidence of cognitive control specialization as well as whole-brain analyses. Subsequent nonparametric tests and measures of neural response variation strengthened our interpretations. Participant d’-context (dependent on task accuracy) measured their tendency to engage in proactive control. Results Behavioral data revealed that HC participants showed a greater proclivity for proactive control than did their SZ counterparts. HC reaction time outpaced SZ reaction time in trials requiring successful marshalling of proactive control. Preliminary neuroimaging analyses suggest marginal between-group differences in control specialization. HC specialization appeared to be most apparent in diffuse frontal lateral regions, and bilateral posterior parietal cortex. Within the SZ group, specialization was most evident in bilateral posterior parietal cortex. Between-group control specialization differences were most apparent in right hemisphere frontal regions. Superior frontal gyrus and medial temporal lobe activity during proactive processes accounted for modest variance in d’-context. Discussion There were significant between-group differences in goal maintenance behavioral metrics such as reaction time and a tendency to engage in proactive control. Control specialization occurred more diffusely in controls compared to patient counterparts. However, activity in these regions had minimal ability to predict behavioral metrics. Overall, the relatively small size of control-specific areas compared to regions involved in dual processing offers support for the malleable nature of regions implicated in human cognitive control.


2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1204-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmel Mevorach ◽  
Glyn W. Humphreys ◽  
Lilach Shalev

Attentional cues can trigger activity in the parietal cortex in anticipation of visual displays, and this activity may, in turn, induce changes in other areas of the visual cortex, hence, implementing attentional selection. In a recent TMS study [Mevorach, C., Humphreys, G. W., & Shalev, L. Opposite biases in salience-based selection for the left and right posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 740–742, 2006b], it was shown that the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) can utilize the relative saliency (a nonspatial property) of a target and a distractor to bias visual selection. Furthermore, selection was lateralized so that the right PPC is engaged when salient information must be selected and the left PPC when the salient information must be ignored. However, it is not clear how the PPC implements these complementary forms of selection. Here we used on-line triple-pulse TMS over the right or left PPC prior to or after the onset of global/local displays. When delivered after the onset of the display, TMS to the right PPC disrupted the selection of the more salient aspect of the hierarchical letter. In contrast, left PPC TMS delivered prior to the onset of the stimulus disrupted responses to the lower saliency stimulus. These findings suggest that selection and suppression of saliency, rather than being “two sides of the same coin,” are fundamentally different processes. Selection of saliency seems to operate reflexively, whereas suppression of saliency relies on a preparatory phase that “sets up” the system in order to effectively ignore saliency.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document