An information theory account of late frontoparietal ERP positivities in cognitive control

Abstract

ERP research on task switching has revealed distinct transient and sustained positive waveforms (latency circa 300–900 ms) while shifting task rules or stimulus‐response (S‐R) mappings. However, it remains unclear whether such switch‐related positivities show similar scalp topography and index context‐updating mechanisms akin to those posed for domain‐general (i.e., classic P300) positivities in many task domains. To examine this question, ERPs were recorded from 31 young adults (18–30 years) while they were intermittently cued to switch or repeat their perceptual categorization of Gabor gratings varying in color and thickness (switch task), or else they performed two visually identical control tasks (go/no‐go and oddball). Our task cueing paradigm examined two temporarily distinct stages of proactive rule updating and reactive rule execution. A simple information theory model helped us gauge cognitive demands under distinct temporal and task contexts in terms of low‐level S‐R pathways and higher‐order rule updating operations. Task demands modulated domain‐general (indexed by classic oddball P3) and switch positivities—indexed by both a cue‐locked late positive complex and a sustained positivity ensuing task transitions. Topographic scalp analyses confirmed subtle yet significant split‐second changes in the configuration of neural sources for both domain‐general P3s and switch positivities as a function of both the temporal and task context. These findings partly meet predictions from information estimates, and are compatible with a family of P3‐like potentials indexing functionally distinct neural operations within a common frontoparietal “multiple demand” system during the preparation and execution of simple task rules.

Dynamics of cognitive control: Theoretical bases, paradigms, and a view for the future

“…Studies of patients with brain lesions as well as studies of individual differences across task conditions and over the lifespan have provided crucial evidence for neurocognitive models of cognitive control (see empirical papers in this special issue focusing on differences across groups, e.g., Baniqued et al, ; Boudewyn & Carter, ; and across conditions or trials in the same individuals, e.g., Barceló & Cooper, ; Provost et al, ). Each of these topics has been the subject of recent in‐depth reviews (e.g., development: Hughes, ; aging: Fabiani, ; schizophrenia: Lesh et al, ).…”

“…There is less clear consensus regarding whether this cue‐locked index of proactive control represents a pure modulation of the parietal P3b or a distinct ERP component superimposed on a P3b (Karayanidis et al, ). Recent suggestions that the P300 complex may represent goal‐specific modulations of control networks dependent on context (see Barceló & Cooper, ) would argue in favor of the former option.…”

Brain reflections: A circuit‐based framework for understanding information processing and cognitive control

“…The dynamics of control processes have been investigated in many labs by recording high‐temporal resolution data within several different paradigms and focusing on different phenomena, including attention cueing/redirecting (Luck & Hillyard, ), task switching and dual‐task conditions (e.g., Baniqued, Low, Fletcher, Gratton, & Fabiani, ; Barceló & Cooper, ), error processing (Falkenstein, Hohnsbein, & Hoormann, ; Gehring, Goss, Coles, Meyer, & Donchin, ), and conflict adaptation (Gratton, Coles, & Donchin, ). All these conditions may be considered as involving a subset of control processes that has been labeled “shifting” by Miyake and Friedman (; see also G. Gratton et al, ).…”

“…In fact, a number of ERP components can be considered as either the manifestation of phasic activity occurring under conditions in which control is required (e.g., the error‐related negativity, ERN; Falkenstein et al, , Gehring et al, , and its variations, such as the feedback‐related negativity, FRN, Hauser et al, ; Miltner, Braun, & Coles, ; the control‐N2, Folstein & Van Petten, ; Von Gunten, Volper‐Esmond, & Bartholow, ; the Pe, Falkenstein et al, ; and the frontal and parietal P300s, see Barceló & Cooper, ; Donchin, ; Donchin & Coles, ; Polich, ) or perhaps consequences of changes in attentional weights (e.g., the N2pc, Luck & Hillyard, ). This is reflected in theoretical accounts proposed for these components, in which they are variably seen as reflecting operations such as error processing (for the ERN, Gehring et al, ), conflict monitoring (also for the ERN, Botvinick et al, ), context updating (for the P300, Donchin, ; Donchin & Coles, ), context closure (also the P300, Verleger, ), and attention shifting (for the N2pc, Luck & Hillyard, ).…”

Dynamics of cognitive control: A view across methodologies

“…Among the paradigms investigated are task switching (Baniqued, Low, Fletcher, Gratton, & Fabiani, ; Barceló & Cooper, ; Provost, Jamadar, Heathcote, Brown, & Karayanidis, ) , error processing ( Boudewyn & Carter, ; Coleman, Watson, & Strayer, ; Drollette et al, ), conflict tasks and conflict adaptation ( Janssens, De Loof, Boehler, Pourtois, & Verguts, 2018; van Campen, Kunert, van den Wildenberg, & Ridderinkhof, ; Von Gunten, Volpert‐Esmond, & Bartholow, ), and stop‐signal and go/no‐go tasks ( Grammer, Gehring, & Morrison, ; Wessel, ). The studies vary in the dependent variables used, including ERPs ( Barceló & Cooper, ; Coleman et al, ; Drollette et al, ; Grammer et al, ; Provost et al, ; Von Gunten et al, ; Wessel, ), oscillations ( Boudewyn & Carter, ; Janssens et al, ), optical imaging (the event‐related optical signal, EROS; Baniqued et al, ), and TMS ( van Campen et al, ). They also vary in the type of analyses used, including trial‐by‐trial variability and multilevel analysis ( Provost et al, ; van Campen et al, ; Von Gunten et al, ), intertask analysis ( Wessel, ), functional connectivity ( Baniqued et al, ), information theory ( Barceló & Cooper, 2018 ), speed‐accuracy instructions ( Coleman et al, ), learning ( Janssens et al, ), fitness intervention ( Drollette et al, ), and clinical and age groups ( Baniqued et al, ; Boudewyn & Carter, ; Drollette et al, ; Grammer et al, ).…”