Sensitivity to effective relational complexity in the occipitoparietal lobe

Previous work identified bilateral regions in the occipitoparietal lobe sensitive to the complexity of relational information [Phillips, S., Niki, K., 2003. Increased bilateral occipitoparietal activity for retention of binary versus unary indexed lists in pair recognition. NeuroImage 20 (2), 1226-1235]. Here, we investigate the effect of learning on sensitivity to relational complexity. Eight subjects were scanned on a pair recognition task before, during and after a 2-week training period when subjects learned to recognize a set of shape pairs. For each trial of the pair recognition task, subjects determined whether a probe pair appeared in a list of learned or novel pairs. In the low/high relational complexity condition, every pair in list AB CD EF/AB AD CB was uniquely identifiable by an item in either/both the first or/and second position. Whole-brain and region of interest contrasts revealed a significant interaction between complexity and learning in the occipitoparietal lobe. The increase in activity for the retention of high versus low complexity lists was greater for learned than novel pair lists. Subjects were more likely to respond to low complexity lists as though they were high complexity prior to training. The results suggest that this region provides a window into effective relational complexity, that is, complexity of relational information as processed by the subject, not as presumed by task design.

[1]  Steven Phillips,et al.  Increased bilateral occipitoparietal activity during retention of binary versus unary indexed lists in pair recognition , 2003, NeuroImage.

[2]  T. Hanakawa,et al.  Transient Neural Activity in the Medial Superior Frontal Gyrus and Precuneus Time Locked with Attention Shift between Object Features , 1999, NeuroImage.

[3]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Superior Parietal Cortex Activation During Spatial Attention Shifts and Visual Feature Conjunction , 1995, Science.

[4]  James K. Kroger,et al.  Rostrolateral Prefrontal Cortex Involvement in Relational Integration during Reasoning , 2001, NeuroImage.

[5]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[6]  K. Holyoak,et al.  A System for Relational Reasoning in Human Prefrontal Cortex , 1999 .

[7]  Relational Processing and the Prefrontal Cortex 1 Prefrontal Cortex Involvement in Relational Processing during Reasoning , 2001 .

[8]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. , 1997 .

[9]  E. F. Codd,et al.  The Relational Model for Database Management, Version 2 , 1990 .

[10]  J. Jonides,et al.  Neuroimaging analyses of human working memory. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  R. Turner,et al.  Characterizing Evoked Hemodynamics with fMRI , 1995, NeuroImage.

[12]  G. Halford,et al.  A cognitive complexity metric applied to cognitive development , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  S. Yantis,et al.  Transient neural activity in human parietal cortex during spatial attention shifts , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1995 .

[15]  J. Desmond,et al.  Neural Substrates of Fluid Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Neocortical Activation during Performance of the Raven's Progressive Matrices Test , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  J. D. E. Gabrieli,et al.  Integration of diverse information in working memory within the frontal lobe , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Steven Phillips,et al.  Separating Relational from Item Load Effects in Paired Recognition: Temporoparietal and Middle Frontal Gyral Activity with Increased Associates, but Not Items during Encoding and Retention , 2002, NeuroImage.

[18]  J. Jonides,et al.  Overlapping mechanisms of attention and spatial working memory , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  R. Marois,et al.  Capacity limits of information processing in the brain , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  Ralph Roskies,et al.  Fourier Descriptors for Plane Closed Curves , 1972, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[22]  M. Torrens.  Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain—3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging, J. Talairach, P. Tournoux. Georg Thieme Verlag, New York (1988), 122 pp., 130 figs. DM 268 , 1990 .

[23]  James K. Kroger,et al.  Recruitment of anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in human reasoning: a parametric study of relational complexity. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.

[24]  R. Klein,et al.  A review of the evidence for a disengage deficit following parietal lobe damage , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[25]  J. Bain,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article How Many Variables Can Humans Process? , 2022 .

[26]  S. Phillips,et al.  Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[27]  G. Halford,et al.  Young children's performance on the balance scale: the influence of relational complexity. , 2002, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[28]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  The processing of associations versus the processing of relations and symbols: A systematic comparison , 1995 .

[29]  Sara Torriero,et al.  rTMS evidence of different delay and decision processes in a fronto-parietal neuronal network activated during spatial working memory , 2005, NeuroImage.

[30]  Y. Miyashita,et al.  Neural organization for the long-term memory of paired associates , 1991, Nature.

[31]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[32]  P N Johnson-Laird,et al.  Reasoning about relations. , 2005, Psychological review.

[33]  K. Holyoak,et al.  A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. , 2003, Psychological review.

[34]  Robert T. Knight,et al.  Susceptibility to Memory Interference Effects following Frontal Lobe Damage: Findings from Tests of Paired-Associate Learning , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.