Neural anticipatory mechanisms predict faster reaction times and higher fluid intelligence

Abstract

Higher cognitive ability is reliably linked to better performance on chronometric tasks (i.e., faster reaction times, RT), yet the neural basis of these effects remains unclear. Anticipatory processes represent compelling yet understudied potential mechanisms of these effects, which may facilitate performance through reducing the uncertainty surrounding the temporal onset of stimuli (temporal uncertainty) and/or facilitating motor readiness despite uncertainty about impending target locations (target uncertainty). Specifically, the contingent negative variation (CNV) represents a compelling candidate mechanism of anticipatory motor planning, while the alpha oscillation is thought to be sensitive to temporal contingencies in perceptual systems. The current study undertook a secondary analysis of a large data set (n = 91) containing choice RT, cognitive ability, and EEG measurements to help clarify these issues. Single‐trial EEG analysis in conjunction with mixed‐effects modeling revealed that higher fluid intelligence corresponded to faster RT on average. When considered together, temporal and target uncertainty moderated the RT‐ability relationship, with higher ability being associated with greater resilience to both types of uncertainty. Target uncertainty attenuated the amplitude of the CNV for all participants, but higher ability individuals were more resilient to this effect. Similarly, only higher ability individuals showed increased prestimulus alpha power (at left‐lateralized sites) during longer, more easily anticipated interstimulus intervals. Collectively, these findings emphasize top‐down anticipatory processes as likely contributors to chronometry‐ability correlations.

Individual differences in anticipatory mu rhythm modulation are associated with executive function and processing speed

“…The attentional allocation and inhibition of attention roles of anticipatory alpha power may be differentially associated with different aspects of executive function, specifically with adult ipsilateral mu power suggested as a potential correlate of the Flanker, an index of inhibition. Correlating neural modulation specific to tactile expectation with broader variability in cognitive functioning is fairly novel (as opposed to tactile perception; see Spitzer & Blankenburg, 2011;Ricciardi et al, 2006), but complements accumulating evidence for the critical role of anticipatory lateralization of alpha responses as an index of broader behavioral outcomes in the visual modality (Van Diepen, Foxe, & Mazaheri, 2019;Van der Lubbe, & Utzerath, 2013;McKinney & Euler, 2019). Separate regression models on contralateral and ipsilateral mu power address whether variability related to the functional allocation or inhibition of attention.…”

“…The absence of a significant association between anticipatory changes in mu and time to behavioral response may be attributed to the fact that participants were required to delay the reporting of their responses for 750 ms, until the display instructed them to respond, while previous investigations required an immediate response (Jones et al, 2010;Haegens et al, 2012;Van Ede et al, 2014). Lateralization has been shown to have an impact on preparation for behavioral responses, particularly in predicting reaction time, above and beyond contralateral or ipsilateral mu (or visual alpha) power alone (Van Ede et al, 2014;Haegens et al, 2011;McKinney & Euler, 2019;Shalev, Van Ede & Nobre, 2019). Changes in mu power during anticipation of the tactile stimulus, rather than in response to that stimulus, drove the association of the mu rhythm with performance on the executive function tasks.…”

“…Many of these studies have utilized task-specific outcomes, such as reaction time, as indicators of higher-order executive abilities. McKinney and Euler (2019) employed a unimodal visual selective attention paradigm to identify the association of alpha modulation higher fluid intelligence but was mediated by reaction time and temporal anticipation (McKinney & Euler, 2019). Open questions remain regarding whether these anticipatory processes serve the same functions in a multimodal-cued paradigm in adults.…”

“…Prior research investigating sensory anticipation, reaction time, and higher-order control of action has primarily employed stimuli in the visual and auditory modalities (McKinney & Euler, 2019;Zanto & Gazzaley, 2009), with much less empirical work focused on how attention in the tactile modality contributes to variance in adapting behavior to task demands. We suggest that attention to tactile stimuli that are presented on the body surface may differ fundamentally from attention to visual and auditory stimuli presented in extrapersonal space (Holmes & Spence, 2004;Bremner, Holmes & Spence, 2012;Serino, 2019).…”

Features of Psychomotor Coordination in Adolescents with Neuropsychiatric Pathology Enrolled in a Standard Educational Program

“…The time and intensity of inhibition of the motor reaction are determined, first of all, by anticipation of the future result of the action. The neural mechanisms underlying movement planning and control are now extensively studied in humans [ 35 ] and in animal model experiments [ 36 ].…”