Neurocognitive subprocesses of working memory performance
-
Published:2021-06-21
Issue:6
Volume:21
Page:1130-1152
-
ISSN:1530-7026
-
Container-title:Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
Author:
Lenartowicz AgathaORCID, Truong Holly, Enriquez Kristen D., Webster Julia, Pochon Jean-Baptiste, Rissman Jesse, Bearden Carrie E., Loo Sandra K., Bilder Robert M.
Abstract
AbstractWorking memory (WM) has been defined as the active maintenance and flexible updating of goal-relevant information in a form that has limited capacity and resists interference. Complex measures of WM recruit multiple subprocesses, making it difficult to isolate specific contributions of putatively independent subsystems. The present study was designed to determine whether neurophysiological indicators of proposed subprocesses of WM predict WM performance. We recruited 200 individuals defined by care-seeking status and measured neural responses using electroencephalography (EEG), while participants performed four WM tasks. We extracted spectral and time-domain EEG features from each task to quantify each of the hypothesized WM subprocesses: maintenance (storage of content), goal maintenance, and updating. We then used EEG measures of each subprocess as predictors of task performance to evaluate their contribution to WM. Significant predictors of WM capacity included contralateral delay activity and frontal theta, features typically associated with maintenance (storage of content) processes. In contrast, significant predictors of reaction time and its variability included contingent negative variation and the P3b, features typically associated with goal maintenance and updating. Broadly, these results suggest two principal dimensions that contribute to WM performance, tonic processes during maintenance contributing to capacity, and phasic processes during stimulus processing that contribute to response speed and variability. The analyses additionally highlight that reliability of features across tasks was greater (and comparable to that of WM performance) for features associated with stimulus processing (P3b and alpha), than with maintenance (gamma, theta and cross-frequency coupling).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Cognitive Neuroscience
Reference102 articles.
1. Alexander, M. P., Stuss, D. T., Picton, T., Shallice, T., & Gillingham, S. (2007). Regional frontal injuries cause distinct impairments in cognitive control. Neurology, 68(18), 1515-1523. Retrieved from ://000246130800013 2. Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403-450. https://doi.org/10.1146/Annurev.Neuro.28.061604.135709 3. Axmacher, N., Henseler, M. M., Jensen, O., Weinreich, I., Elger, C. E., & Fell, J. (2010). Cross-frequency coupling supports multi-item working memory in the human hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(7), 3228-3233. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911531107 4. Axmacher, N., Mormann, F., Fernandez, G., Cohen, M. X., Elger, C. E., & Fell, J. (2007). Sustained neural activity patterns during working memory in the human medial temporal lobe. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(29), 7807-7816. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0962-07.2007 5. Babiloni, C., Brancucci, A., Capotosto, P., Romani, G. L., Arendt-Nielsen, L., Chen, A. C., & Rossini, P. M. (2005). Slow cortical potential shifts preceding sensorimotor interactions. Brain Research Bulletin, 65(4), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2004.11.023
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|