Evidence for independent representational contents in inhibitory control subprocesses associated with frontoparietal cortices

Abstract

Inhibitory control processes have intensively been studied in cognitive science for the past decades. Even though the neural dynamics underlying these processes are increasingly better understood, a critical open question is how the representational dynamics of the inhibitory control processes are modulated when engaging in response inhibition in a relatively automatic or a controlled mode. Against the background of an overarching theory of perception‐action integration, we combine temporal and spatial EEG signal decomposition methods with multivariate pattern analysis and source localization to obtain fine‐grained insights into the neural dynamics of the representational content of response inhibition. For this purpose, we used a sample of N = 40 healthy adult participants. The behavioural data suggest that response inhibition was better in a more controlled than a more automated response execution mode. Regarding neural dynamics, effects of response inhibition modes relied on a concomitant coding of stimulus‐related information and rules of how stimulus information is related to the appropriate motor programme. Crucially, these fractions of information, which are encoded at the same time in the neurophysiological signal, are based on two independent spatial neurophysiological activity patterns, also showing differences in the temporal stability of the representational content. Source localizations revealed that the precuneus and inferior parietal cortex regions are more relevant than prefrontal areas for the representation of stimulus–response selection codes. We provide a blueprint how a concatenation of EEG signal analysis methods, capturing distinct aspects of neural dynamics, can be connected to cognitive science theory on the importance of representations in action control.

Deep learning on independent spatial EEG activity patterns delineates time windows relevant for response inhibition

“…In comparison to conventional approaches that only rely on scalp EEG data, using source localization based on ICA can provide a more exact and accurate estimate of the sources of brain activity. Moreover, recent studies suggest that especially spatially independent activity profiles provide valuable insights into the dynamics of response inhibition processes (Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2023; Messel et al, 2021; Raud et al, 2020).…”

“…Crucially, however, time‐domain EEG responses can reflect the mixture of multiple, spatially separated profiles of neural dynamics (Huster et al, 2015; Nunez et al, 1997; Stock et al, 2017), making it likely that the spatial neural dynamics is also central to consider when trying to evaluate which neural processes are most distinct (predictive) for opposing classes of behavior (i.e., response inhibition vs. execution) (Chmielewski et al, 2018). Recent studies suggest that especially spatially independent activity profiles provide valuable insights into the dynamics of response inhibition processes (Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2023; Messel et al, 2021; Raud et al, 2020). To dissociate EEG signals into components that are more indicative of underlying neural substrates and reflect independent neural dynamics spatial distribution, independent component analysis (ICA) is a powerful tool (Delorme et al, 2012).…”

Response stopping under conflict: The integrative role of representational dynamics associated with the insular cortex

“…This remains a critical issue considering that event file dynamics have been conceptualized as network dynamics with concomitant processing in multiple cortical regions (Hommel, 2004), a notion which has been supported by neurophysiological evidence (Eggert et al, 2022; Takacs, Mückschel, et al, 2020; Takacs, Zink, et al, 2020). In particular, it has been shown that event file coding involves specific (spatially independent) aspects of neural activity associated with distinct fronto‐parietal cortex regions (Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2022; Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2023; Prochnow et al, 2022). Given these conceptual considerations, we aim to investigate the spatial neural dynamics during reactive inhibition and to examine how representational dynamics unfold in these spatially distinct neural structures.…”

“…Several studies have also examined the neurophysiological underpinnings of binding and reconfiguration of event file coding during response selection (Opitz et al, 2020; Petruo et al, 2016; Takacs et al, 2021; Takacs, Bluschke, et al, 2020; Takacs, Mückschel, et al, 2020; Takacs, Zink, et al, 2020) and response inhibition (Eggert et al, 2023; Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2022; Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2023; Prochnow et al, 2021). An innovative method to precisely capture the temporal profiles of neurophysiological correlates of event file dynamics is to apply temporal signal decomposition (i.e., residue iteration decomposition [RIDE]) to EEG data (Ouyang et al, 2015; Ouyang et al, 2017).…”

“…ICA can be used to obtain the topographical location of independent components (ICs) of activity of specific brain sources (Huster et al, 2015; Huster & Raud, 2018). The combination of these methods will provide information about when and how long the distinct temporal profiles of the representational content are present in isolated ICs (Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2023). Based on previous findings showing that a more pronounced off‐diagonal activity reflects event file reconfiguration (Prochnow et al, 2021; Takacs, Mückschel, et al, 2020), we expect a more pronounced off‐diagonal activity in incongruent stop trials, compared to congruent ones, when event file reconfiguration is necessary for the implementation of the response cancellation.…”