Sensory suppression and increased neuromodulation during actions disrupt memory encoding of unpredictable self-initiated stimuli

Actions modulate sensory processing by attenuating responses to self- compared to externally-generated inputs, which is traditionally attributed to stimulus-specific motor predictions. Yet, suppression has been also found for stimuli merely coinciding with actions, pointing to unspecific processes that may be driven by neuromodulatory systems. Meanwhile, the differential processing for self-generated stimuli raises the possibility of producing effects also on memory for these stimuli, however, evidence remains mixed as to the direction of the effects. Here, we assessed the effects of actions on sensory processing and memory encoding of concomitant, but unpredictable sounds, using a combination of self-generation and memory recognition task concurrently with EEG and pupil recordings. At encoding, subjects performed button presses that half of the time generated a sound (motor-auditory; MA) and listened to passively presented sounds (auditory-only; A). At retrieval, two sounds were presented and participants had to respond which one was present before. We measured memory bias and memory performance by having sequences where either both or only one of the test sounds were presented at encoding, respectively. Results showed worse memory performance — but no differences in memory bias — and attenuated responses and larger pupil diameter for MA compared to A sounds. Critically, the larger the sensory attenuation and pupil diameter, the worse the memory performance for MA sounds. Nevertheless, sensory attenuation did not correlate with pupil dilation. Collectively, our findings suggest that sensory attenuation and neuromodulatory processes coexist during actions, and both relate to disrupted memory for concurrent, albeit unpredictable sounds.

Movement Planning Determines Sensory Suppression: An Event-related Potential Study

Sensory suppression refers to the phenomenon that sensory input generated by our own actions, such as moving a finger to press a button to hear a tone, elicits smaller neural responses than sensory input generated by external agents. This observation is usually explained via the internal forward model in which an efference copy of the motor command is used to compute a corollary discharge, which acts to suppress sensory input. However, because moving a finger to press a button is accompanied by neural processes involved in preparing and performing the action, it is unclear whether sensory suppression is the result of movement planning, movement execution, or both. To investigate this, in two experiments, we compared event-related potentials to self-generated tones that were produced by voluntary, semivoluntary, or involuntary button-presses, with externally generated tones that were produced by a computer. In Experiment 1, the semivoluntary and involuntary button-presses were initiated by the participant or experimenter, respectively, by electrically stimulating the median nerve in the participant's forearm, and in Experiment 2, by applying manual force to the participant's finger. We found that tones produced by voluntary button-presses elicited a smaller N1 component of the event-related potential than externally generated tones. This is known as N1-suppression. However, tones produced by semivoluntary and involuntary button-presses did not yield significant N1-suppression. We also found that the magnitude of N1-suppression linearly decreased across the voluntary, semivoluntary, and involuntary conditions. These results suggest that movement planning is a necessary condition for producing sensory suppression. We conclude that the most parsimonious account of sensory suppression is the internal forward model.

Neural mechanisms underlying distractor inhibition on the basis of feature and/or spatial expectations

A rapidly growing body of research indicates that inhibition of distracting information may not be under flexible, top-down control, but instead heavily relies on expectations derived from past experience about the likelihood of events. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. To determine how expectations induced by distractor features and/or location regularities modulate distractor processing, we measured EEG while participants performed two variants of the additional singleton paradigm. Critically, in these different variants, target and distractor features either randomly swapped across trials, or were fixed, allowing for the development of distractor feature-based expectations. Moreover, the task was initially performed without any spatial regularities, after which a high probability distractor location was introduced. Our results show that both distractor feature- and location regularities contributed to distractor inhibition, as indicated by corresponding reductions in distractor costs during visual search and an earlier distractor-evoked Pd ERP. Yet, control analyses showed that while observers were sensitive to regularities across longer time scales, the observed effects to a large extent reflected intertrial repetition. Large individual differences further suggest a functional dissociation between early and late Pd components, with the former reflecting early sensory suppression related to intertrial priming and the latter reflecting suppression sensitive to expectations derived over a longer time scale. Also, counter to some previous findings, no increase in anticipatory alpha-band activity was observed over visual regions representing the expected distractor location, although this effect should be interpreted with caution as the effect of spatial statistical learning was also less pronounced than in other studies. Together, these findings suggest that intertrial priming and statistical learning may both contribute to distractor suppression and reveal the underlying neural mechanisms.

A supragranular nexus for the effects of neocortical beta events on human tactile perception

Transient neocortical events with high spectral power in the 15–29Hz beta band are among the most reliable predictors of sensory perception: High prestimulus beta event rates in primary somatosensory lead to sensory suppression, most effective at 100–300ms prestimulus latency. However, the synaptic and neuronal mechanisms inducing beta’s perceptual effects have not been completely localized. We combined human MEG with neural modeling designed to account for these macroscale signals to interpret the cellular and circuit mechanisms that underlie the influence of beta on tactile detection. Extending prior studies, we modeled the hypothesis that higher-order thalamic bursts, sufficient for beta event generation in cortex, recruit supragranular GABAB inhibition acting on a 300ms time scale to suppress sensory information. Consistency between model and MEG data supported this hypothesis and led to a further prediction, validated in our data, that stimuli are perceived when beta events occur simultaneously with tactile stimulation. The post-event suppressive mechanism explains an array of studies that associate beta with decreased processing, while the during-event mechanism may demand a reinterpretation of the role of beta events in the context of coincident timing.Significance statementSomatosensory beta events – transient 15-29Hz oscillations in electromagnetic recordings – are thought to be generated when “top-down” bursts of spikes presumably originating in higher-order thalamus arrive in upper layers of somatosensory cortex. Physiological evidence had shown that the immediate action of these top-down projections should be excitatory; however, after a beta event, sensory perception is noticeably inhibited for approximately 300ms. The source of this post-event sensory suppression, in particular, had been unresolved. Using a detailed computational model of somatosensory cortex, we find evidence for the hypothesis that these bursts couple indirectly to GABAB inhibition in upper layers of cortex, and that beta events first briefly disinhibit sensory relay before a longer period of inhibition.