EEG Decoding Reveals the Strength and Temporal Dynamics of Goal-Relevant Representations

Models of action control assume that attentional control settings regulate the processing of lower-level stimulus/response representations. Yet, little is known about how exactly control and sensory/response representations relate to each other to produce goal-directed behavior. Addressing this question requires time-resolved information about the strength of the different, potentially overlapping representations, on a trial-by-trial basis. Using a cued task-switching paradigm, we show that information about relevant representations can be extracted through decoding analyses from the scalp electrophysiological signal (EEG) with high temporal resolution. Peaks in representational strength—indexed through decoding accuracy—proceeded from superficial task cues, to stimulus locations, to features/responses. In addition, attentional-set representations were prominent throughout almost the entire processing cascade. Trial-by-trial analyses provided detailed information about when and to what degree different representations predict performance, with attentional settings emerging as a strong and consistent predictor of within-individual and across-individual variability in performance. Also, the strength of attentional sets was related to target representations early in the post-stimulus period and to feature/response representations at a later period, suggesting control of successive, lower-level representations in a concurrent manner. These results demonstrate a powerful approach towards uncovering different stages of information processing and their relative importance for performance.

[1]  L. Bruzzone,et al.  EEG decoding of semantic category reveals distributed representations for single concepts , 2011, Brain and Language.

[2]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Control and interference in task switching--a review. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  S. Petersen,et al.  A dual-networks architecture of top-down control , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[5]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Frank Rösler,et al.  Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs , 2008, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[7]  Michael L. Waskom,et al.  Frontoparietal Representations of Task Context Support the Flexible Control of Goal-Directed Cognition , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  D. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Analyzing Neural Time Series Data: Theory and Practice , 2014 .

[11]  Ulrich Mayr,et al.  Eye movements reveal dynamics of task control. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  David W. Sutterer,et al.  The topography of alpha-band activity tracks the content of spatial working memory. , 2016, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Frontal Cortex and the Discovery of Abstract Action Rules , 2010, Neuron.

[14]  P. Fries A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  G. D. Logan Task Switching , 2022 .

[16]  Michael J. Wolff,et al.  Decoding Rich Spatial Information with High Temporal Resolution , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  K. Sakai Task set and prefrontal cortex. , 2008, Annual review of neuroscience.

[18]  Nachshon Meiran,et al.  Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching , 2000 .

[19]  F. Karayanidis,et al.  The many faces of preparatory control in task switching: Reviewing a decade of fMRI research , 2013, Human brain mapping.

[20]  Ulrich Mayr,et al.  Dynamics of task-set carry-over: evidence from eye-movement analyses , 2015, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[21]  Eric L. Denovellis,et al.  Synchronous Oscillatory Neural Ensembles for Rules in the Prefrontal Cortex , 2012, Neuron.

[22]  Markus Siegel,et al.  Cortical information flow during flexible sensorimotor decisions , 2015, Science.

[23]  Lynne M Reder,et al.  He who is well prepared has half won the battle: an FMRI study of task preparation. , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[24]  Andrea Hildebrandt,et al.  Exploiting the intra-subject latency variability from single-trial event-related potentials in the P3 time range: A review and comparative evaluation of methods , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[25]  F. Q. Ribeiro The meta-analysis , 2017, Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology.

[26]  U. Mayr Age differences in the selection of mental sets: the role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. , 2001, Psychology and aging.

[27]  Tobias Egner,et al.  Dynamic Trial-by-Trial Recoding of Task-Set Representations in the Frontoparietal Cortex Mediates Behavioral Flexibility , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  C. H. Donahue,et al.  Dynamic Routing of Task-relevant Signals for Decision Making in Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[30]  T. Shallice,et al.  Task Switching : A PDP Model , 2001 .

[31]  Rachael K. Blackman,et al.  Executive Control Over Cognition: Stronger and Earlier Rule-Based Modulation of Spatial Category Signals in Prefrontal Cortex Relative to Parietal Cortex , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  Bradley R. Postle,et al.  Decoding and Reconstructing the Focus of Spatial Attention from the Topography of Alpha-band Oscillations , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Characterizing the dynamics of mental representations: the temporal generalization method , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  K. C. Anderson,et al.  Single neurons in prefrontal cortex encode abstract rules , 2001, Nature.

[35]  Tor D Wager,et al.  Neuroimaging studies of shifting attention: a meta-analysis , 2004, NeuroImage.

[36]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Neurophysiological signature of effective anticipatory task‐set control: a task‐switching investigation , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.

[37]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[38]  Christopher. Simons,et al.  Machine learning with Python , 2017 .

[39]  G. Logan,et al.  Clever homunculus: is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  B. Gold,et al.  Domain general and domain preferential brain regions associated with different types of task switching: A Meta‐Analysis , 2012, Human brain mapping.

[41]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  Katsuyuki Sakai,et al.  Prefrontal Set Activity Predicts Rule-Specific Neural Processing during Subsequent Cognitive Performance , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[43]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[44]  Jeremy R. Reynolds,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Transient and Sustained Cognitive Control during Task Switching , 2003, Neuron.

[45]  Ulrich Mayr,et al.  Decoding hierarchical control of sequential behavior in oscillatory EEG activity , 2018, bioRxiv.

[46]  Darryl W. Schneider,et al.  Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.