The impact of MRI scanner environment on perceptual decision-making

Despite the widespread use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), few studies have addressed scanner effects on performance. The studies that have examined this question show a wide variety of results. In this article we report analyses of three experiments in which participants performed a perceptual decision-making task both in a traditional setting as well as inside an MRI scanner. The results consistently show that response times increase inside the scanner. Error rates also increase, but to a lesser extent. To reveal the underlying mechanisms that drive the behavioral changes when performing a task inside the MRI scanner, the data were analyzed using the linear ballistic accumulator model of decision-making. These analyses show that, in the scanner, participants exhibit a slow down of the motor component of the response and have less attentional focus on the task. However, the balance between focus and motor slowing depends on the specific task requirements.

[1]  Wolfhard Semmler,et al.  Cognition and sensation in very high static magnetic fields: a randomized case-crossover study with different field strengths. , 2013, Radiology.

[2]  D. Algom,et al.  Selective attention improves under stress: implications for theories of social cognition. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs , 2012 .

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

[5]  A. Lazarte,et al.  Component fears of claustrophobia associated with mock magnetic resonance imaging. , 2007, Journal of anxiety disorders.

[6]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial , 2016 .

[7]  Birte U. Forstmann,et al.  Trial-by-trial fluctuations in CNV amplitude reflect anticipatory adjustment of response caution , 2014, NeuroImage.

[8]  D Atkinson,et al.  Determination of gradient magnetic field‐induced acoustic noise associated with the use of echo planar and three‐dimensional, fast spin echo techniques , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial (with comments by M. Clyde, David Draper and E. I. George, and a rejoinder by the authors , 1999 .

[10]  Wolfhard Semmler,et al.  Effects of static magnetic fields on cognition, vital signs, and sensory perception: A meta‐analysis , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  Clemens Kirschbaum,et al.  Within and between session changes in subjective and neuroendocrine stress parameters during magnetic resonance imaging: A controlled scanner training study , 2012, Psychoneuroendocrinology.

[12]  E. Donchin,et al.  Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  B. Hommel,et al.  The Effect of Fmri (noise) on Cognitive Control , 2022 .

[14]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  L. Shah,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2010, Seminars in roentgenology.

[16]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[17]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Bias in the Brain: A Diffusion Model Analysis of Prior Probability and Potential Payoff , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  I. Lemahieu,et al.  Effect of the static magnetic field of the MR-scanner on ERPs: Evaluation of visual, cognitive and motor potentials , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[19]  A. Pouget,et al.  Variance as a Signature of Neural Computations during Decision Making , 2011, Neuron.

[20]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Diffusion model for one-choice reaction-time tasks and the cognitive effects of sleep deprivation , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  M. Lee,et al.  Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course , 2014 .

[22]  Keith R Thulborn,et al.  Safety of human MRI at static fields above the FDA 8T guideline: Sodium imaging at 9.4T does not affect vital signs or cognitive ability , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[23]  Charles E. Collyer,et al.  Comparing strong and weak models by fitting them to computer-generated data , 1985 .

[24]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The Optimality of Sensory Processing during the Speed–Accuracy Tradeoff , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  Yul-Wan Sung,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2004, Scholarpedia.

[26]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  Drawing conclusions from choice response time models: A tutorial using the linear ballistic accumulator , 2011 .

[27]  Leendert van Maanen,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Are accuracy and reaction time affected via different processes ? , 2013 .

[28]  Hedderik van Rijn,et al.  The Locus of the Gratton Effect in Picture-Word Interference , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[29]  B. Hommel,et al.  A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task , 2004, Psychological research.

[30]  Wayne A. Wickelgren,et al.  Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics , 1977 .

[31]  M. Shadlen,et al.  The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[32]  M. Dambacher,et al.  Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict , 2014, Psychological Research.

[33]  H. Engeland,et al.  Basic Impairments in Regulating the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Predict Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder , 2010, Biological Psychiatry.

[34]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  BayesFactor version 0.9.9: An R package for computing Bayes factor for a variety of psychological research designs , 2014 .

[35]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection , 2011, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  S. Sinha Introduction to Bayesian Statistics (2nd ed.) , 2008 .

[37]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The Neural Substrate of Prior Information in Perceptual Decision Making: A Model-Based Analysis , 2010, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[38]  R. Karg,et al.  Fear responses to mock magnetic resonance imaging among college students: toward a prototype experiment. , 2003, Journal of anxiety disorders.

[39]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  Ewald Moser,et al.  EEG reveals the effect of fMRI scanner noise on noise-sensitive subjects , 2006, NeuroImage.

[41]  R. Bogacz,et al.  The neural basis of the speed–accuracy tradeoff , 2010, Trends in Neurosciences.

[42]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Applying Occam’s razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach , 1997 .

[43]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  AIC model selection using Akaike weights , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[44]  Birte U. Forstmann,et al.  Piéron’s Law and Optimal Behavior in Perceptual Decision-Making , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[45]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Domain General Mechanisms of Perceptual Decision Making in Human Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[46]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Neural Correlates of Trial-to-Trial Fluctuations in Response Caution , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[47]  L. M. M.-T. Theory of Probability , 1929, Nature.

[48]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Similarity and number of alternatives in the random-dot motion paradigm , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[49]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  RACE/A: An Architectural Account of the Interactions Between Learning, Task Control, and Retrieval Dynamics , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[50]  A. Raftery Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[51]  G. W. Haywood,et al.  Effects of static , 1979 .

[52]  K. Koch Introduction to Bayesian Statistics , 2007 .

[53]  R. Sekuler,et al.  A specific and enduring improvement in visual motion discrimination. , 1982, Science.

[54]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction , 1989 .

[55]  Roshan Cools,et al.  Bromocriptine Does Not Alter Speed–Accuracy Tradeoff , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[56]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  The speed and accuracy of perceptual decisions in a random-tone pitch task , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[58]  K. S. Wakefield,et al.  Effects of static , 1979 .

[59]  Guilherme Wood,et al.  Are reaction times obtained during fMRI scanning reliable and valid measures of behavior? , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[60]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Equivalence of cognitive processes in brain imaging and behavioral studies: evidence from task switching , 2003, NeuroImage.

[61]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff , 2012, Neuron.

[62]  Rico Fischer,et al.  Inflexibly Focused under Stress: Acute Psychosocial Stress Increases Shielding of Action Goals at the Expense of Reduced Cognitive Flexibility with Increasing Time Lag to the Stressor , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[63]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  Linear Deterministic Accumulator Models of Simple Choice , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[64]  B. Forstmann,et al.  Perceptual decision neurosciences – A model-based review , 2014, Neuroscience.

[65]  Ion Juvina,et al.  A repetition-suppression account of between-trial effects in a modified Stroop paradigm. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[66]  Richard R Plant,et al.  Millisecond precision psychological research in a world of commodity computers: New hardware, new problems? , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[67]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[68]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience , 2015, Springer New York.

[69]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  Getting more from accuracy and response time data: Methods for fitting the linear ballistic accumulator , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[70]  B. Balas,et al.  Personal Familiarity Influences the Processing of Upright and Inverted Faces in Infants , 2009, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[71]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .