Abstract

Cognitive control processes encompass many distinct components, including response inhibition (stopping a prepotent response), proactive control (using prior information to enact control), reactive control (last-minute changing of a prepotent response), and conflict monitoring (choosing between two competing responses). While frontal midline theta activity is theorized to be a general marker of the need for cognitive control, a stringent test of this hypothesis would require a quantitative, within-subject comparison of the neural activation patterns indexing many different cognitive control strategies, an experiment lacking in the current literature. We recorded EEG from 176 participants as they performed tasks that tested inhibitory control (Go/Nogo Task), proactive and reactive control (AX-Continuous Performance Task), and resolving response conflict (Global/Local Task-modified Flanker Task). As activity in the theta (4–8 Hz) frequency band is thought to be a common signature of cognitive control, we assessed frontal midline theta activation underlying each cognitive control strategy. In all strategies, we found higher frontal midline theta power for trials that required more cognitive control (target conditions) versus control conditions. Additionally, reactive control and inhibitory control had higher theta power than proactive control and response conflict, and proactive control had higher theta power than response conflict. Using decoding analyses, we were able to successfully decode control from target trials using classifiers trained exclusively on each of the other strategies, thus firmly demonstrating that theta representations of cognitive control generalize across multiple cognitive control strategies. Our results confirm that frontal midline theta-band activity is a common mechanism for initiating and executing cognitive control, but theta power also differentiates between cognitive control mechanisms. As theta activation reliably differs depending on the cognitive control strategy employed, future work will need to focus on the differential role of theta in differing cognitive control strategies.

Highlights

  • Cognitive control processes encompass many distinct components, including response inhibition, proactive control, reactive control, and conflict monitoring

  • Post hoc testing showed that inhibitory control and reactive control both had higher interference scores than proactive control and response conflict, while response conflict had higher interference than proactive control

  • Proactive control showed an opposite effect, such that RTs were significantly faster for high control (BX) trials compared to low control (AX) trials, mean difference = 65.55 ms, t(175) = 27.21, p < 0.001

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cognitive control processes encompass many distinct components, including response inhibition (stopping a prepotent response), proactive control (using prior information to enact control), reactive control (last-minute changing of a prepotent response), and conflict monitoring (choosing between two competing responses). Cognitive control is an umbrella term that encompasses many distinct s­ ubcomponents[3] These subcomponents of cognitive control are typically assessed using various laboratory paradigms that require withholding a predominant response (response i­nhibition4), paradigms that induce conflict at the stimulus level by priming multiple competing responses (response ­conflict5–7), or continuous performance tasks that differentiate just-in-time (reactive) control and planned (proactive) c­ ontrol[8,9]. Several studies have compared neural activation during different tasks (Go/Nogo vs Stop-Signal[11]; AX-Continuous Performance Task versus Dot Pattern ­Expectancy12), but these comparisons were limited to tasks enacting the same control strategy (inhibitory control and proactive/reactive control, respectively). Previous source localized analyses generally preclude the influence of more spatially distant brain regions (i.e. other than medial/lateral frontal cortex)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call