Brain oscillatory activity associated with task switching and feedback processing

Abstract

In this study, we sought to dissociate eventrelated potentials (ERPs) and the oscillatory activity associated with signals indicating feedback about performance (outcome-based behavioral adjustment) and the signals indicating the need to change or maintain a task set (rule-based behavioral adjustment). With this purpose in mind, we noninvasively recorded electroencephalographic signals, using a modified version of the Wisconsin card sorting task, in which feedback processing and task switching could be studied separately. A similar late positive component was observed for the switch and correct feedback signals on the first trials of a series, but feedbackrelated negativity was observed only for incorrect feedback. Moreover, whereas theta power showed a significant increase after a switch cue and after the first positive feedback of a new series, a selective frontal beta-gamma increase was observed exclusively in the first positive feedback (i.e., after the selection of the new rule). Importantly, for the switch cue, beta-alpha activity was suppressed rather than increased. This clear dissociation between the cue and feedback stimuli in task switching emphasizes the need to accurately study brain oscillatory activity to disentangle the role of different cognitive control processes.

Neurophysiological differences in reward processing in anhedonics

“…Previous research had suggested that beta-gamma activity is a possible neural marker of reward associated with monetary gains (Marco-Pallarés et al, 2008;Marco-Pallarés et al, 2009) and positive feedback (Cohen et al, 2007;Cunillera et al, 2012;Haji Hosseini et al, 2012). Animal studies have observed increases of beta activity in the striatum after reward delivery (Courtemanche, Fuji, & Graybiel, 2003).…”

“…In this sense, it has been proposed that medial frontal theta activity represents the broad coordination of several brain regions implicated in action monitoring and control processes (Cavanagh et al, 2010). Accordingly, theta power increases seem to be relevant for task switching (Cunillera et al, 2012), for improving learning (van de Vijver et al, 2011), and for future behavioral adjustments (Cavanagh, Cohen, & Allen, 2009;Cavanagh et al, 2010;Womelsdorf et al, 2010).…”

“…Accordingly, these signals in the mPFC might help the organism to detect potential cognitive conflicts arising from previous expectations and unexpected outcomes, enhancing action monitoring and control processes (Botvinick, Cohen, & Carter, 2004;Holroyd & Coles, 2002;Ridderinkhof, Ullsperger, Crone, & Nieuwenhuis, 2004). In this regard, it has been proposed that increases of the medial-frontal theta component may represent a general top-down mechanism operating over expectation violation and behavioral adaptation in order to improve performance and learning (Cavanagh et al, 2010;Cunillera et al, 2012;Tzur & Berger, 2009;van de Vijver, Ridderinkhof, & Cohen, 2011;Womelsdorf, Johnston, Vinck, & Everling, 2010).…”

Theta frontoparietal connectivity associated with proactive and reactive cognitive control processes

“…This is consistent with findings from other paradigms that rely primarily on reactive control processes. In a cued-Wisconsin Card Sorting task, cues associated with a rule switch led to sustained theta band activity across frontal and parietal sites, as well as a decrease in centro-parietal alpha band power (Cunillera et al, 2012). However, using a cued-trial paradigm, Mansfield et al, (2012) found differences in low-mid frequency oscillations between switch and repeat cues, relative to a non-informative cue baseline, over right frontal and bilateral parietal sites in time windows corresponding the early switchpositivity and pre-target negativity, respectively.…”

Individual differences in error tolerance in humans: Neurophysiological evidences

“…In turn, the P3 is a slow centro-parietal component associated with the updating of relevant (i.e., motivationally salient) external information, formation of new decisions, and consequent changes in behavior according to task contingencies (Barcelo, Escera, Corral, & Perianez, 2006;Chase, Swainson, Durham, Benham, & Cools, 2011;Fischer & Ullsperger, 2013). For instance, the P3 component is usually enhanced after stimuli indicating the request to implement a new rule change (e.g., in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task and the Reversal Learning Task; Chase et al, 2011;Cunillera et al, 2012). Centro-parietal EEG activity indexed by the P3-like components may possibly echo brain computations, reflecting the accumulation of internal evidences that an error (or erratic behavioral trend) has occurred (Steinhauser & Yeung, 2010) and deliberate changes in behavior may be required.…”