Modulation of Brain Activity during a Stroop Inhibitory Task by the Kind of Cognitive Control Required

This study used a proportion congruency manipulation in the Stroop task in order to investigate, at the behavioral and brain substrate levels, the predictions derived from the Dual Mechanisms of Control (DMC) account of two distinct modes of cognitive control depending on the task context. Three experimental conditions were created that varied the proportion congruency: mostly incongruent (MI), mostly congruent (MC), and mostly neutral (MN) contexts. A reactive control strategy, which corresponds to transient interference resolution processes after conflict detection, was expected for the rare conflicting stimuli in the MC context, and a proactive strategy, characterized by a sustained task-relevant focus prior to the occurrence of conflict, was expected in the MI context. Results at the behavioral level supported the proactive/reactive distinction, with the replication of the classic proportion congruent effect (i.e., less interference and facilitation effects in the MI context). fMRI data only partially supported our predictions. Whereas reactive control for incongruent trials in the MC context engaged the expected fronto-parietal network including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and anterior cingulate cortex, proactive control in the MI context was not associated with any sustained lateral prefrontal cortex activations, contrary to our hypothesis. Surprisingly, incongruent trials in the MI context elicited transient activation in common with incongruent trials in the MC context, especially in DLPFC, superior parietal lobe, and insula. This lack of sustained activity in MI is discussed in reference to the possible involvement of item-specific rather than list-wide mechanisms of control in the implementation of a high task-relevant focus.

[1]  V. Menon,et al.  Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function , 2010, Brain Structure and Function.

[2]  Chris Blais,et al.  Behavioral and Neural Evidence for Item-specific Performance Monitoring , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Stroop-Type Interference : Congruity Effects in Color Naming With Typewritten Responses , 1998 .

[4]  Eliot Hazeltine,et al.  Dissociable Contributions of Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices to Response Selection , 2002, NeuroImage.

[5]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[6]  Antonino Vallesi,et al.  Task Context and Frontal Lobe Activation in the Stroop Task , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  D. Lowe,et al.  Selective and divided Attention in a Stroop task. , 1982, Canadian journal of psychology.

[8]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[9]  T. L. Brown The relationship between Stroop interference and facilitation effects: statistical artifacts, baselines, and a reassessment. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  R Turner,et al.  Optimisation of the 3D MDEFT sequence for anatomical brain imaging: technical implications at 1.5 and 3 T , 2004, NeuroImage.

[11]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  Variation in working memory , 2008 .

[12]  T. Braver,et al.  Motivated Cognitive Control: Reward Incentives Modulate Preparatory Neural Activity during Task-Switching , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control , 2004, Science.

[14]  Michael H. Buonocore,et al.  Integrating Conflict Detection and Attentional Control Mechanisms , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  S. Gauthier,et al.  Inhibition impairments in Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment and healthy aging: Effect of congruency proportion in a Stroop task , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  Koji Jimura,et al.  Age-related shifts in brain activity dynamics during task switching. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[17]  Hannah S. Locke,et al.  Prefrontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  T. Braver,et al.  Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. , 2007 .

[19]  Tobias Egner,et al.  The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task , 2005, NeuroImage.

[20]  A. MacDonald,et al.  The neural basis of cognitive control: Response selection and inhibition , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

[21]  Kathryn M. McMillan,et al.  A comparison of label‐based review and ALE meta‐analysis in the Stroop task , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[22]  J. Cohen,et al.  Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. , 2000, Science.

[23]  G. Logan,et al.  When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task , 1979 .

[24]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Todd S. Braver,et al.  A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions , 2006, Neurocomputing.

[26]  B. Forstmann,et al.  Neurocognitive mechanisms of action control: resisting the call of the Sirens. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[27]  K. Hutchison,et al.  The Interactive Effects of Listwide Control, Item-based Control, and Working Memory Capacity on Stroop Performance and Holly Vander Vos for Scheduling and Running Participants for This Study. I Am Also Grateful To , 2022 .

[28]  K. Zilles,et al.  A link between the systems: functional differentiation and integration within the human insula revealed by meta-analysis , 2010, Brain Structure and Function.

[29]  T. Braver,et al.  Cognitive control, goal maintenance, and prefrontal function in healthy aging. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Stroop process dissociations: the relationship between facilitation and interference. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Tor D. Wager,et al.  Common and unique components of response inhibition revealed by fMRI , 2005, NeuroImage.

[33]  T. Braver The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  Jin Fan,et al.  Cognitive and Brain Consequences of Conflict , 2003, NeuroImage.

[35]  Hannah S. Locke,et al.  Flexible neural mechanisms of cognitive control within human prefrontal cortex , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Hannah S. Locke,et al.  Motivational influences on cognitive control: Behavior, brain activation, and individual differences , 2008, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[37]  Derek Besner,et al.  Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: a computational model. , 2007, Psychological review.

[38]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

[39]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  J. Jonides,et al.  Interference resolution: Insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks , 2007, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[41]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[42]  Deanna M. Barch,et al.  Accounting for Cognitive Aging: Context Processing, Inhibition or Processing Speed? , 2006, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[43]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[44]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[45]  Jesper Andersson,et al.  Valid conjunction inference with the minimum statistic , 2005, NeuroImage.

[46]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Stroop-Type Interference: Congruity Effects in Color Naming With Typewritten Responses , 1998 .

[47]  Ardi Roelofs,et al.  Attentional Control in Anterior Cingulate Cortex Based on Probabilistic Cueing , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  Examining a Supramodal Network for Conflict Processing: A Systematic Review and Novel Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data for Related Visual and Auditory Stroop Tasks , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[49]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  J. Bugg,et al.  List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture–word Stroop , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[51]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.