Perception‐action integration during inhibitory control is reflected in a concomitant multi‐region processing of specific codes in the neurophysiological signal

Abstract

The integration of perception and action has long been studied in psychological science using overarching cognitive frameworks. Despite these being very successful in explaining perception‐action integration, little is known about its neurophysiological and especially the functional neuroanatomical foundations. It is unknown whether distinct brain structures are simultaneously involved in the processing of perception‐action integration codes and also to what extent demands on perception‐action integration modulate activities in these structures. We investigate these questions in an EEG study integrating temporal and ICA‐based EEG signal decomposition with source localization. For this purpose, we used data from 32 healthy participants who performed a ‘TEC Go/Nogo’ task. We show that the EEG signal can be decomposed into components carrying different informational aspects or processing codes relevant for perception‐action integration. Importantly, these specific codes are processed independently in different brain structures, and their specific roles during the processing of perception‐action integration differ. Some regions (i.e., the anterior cingulate and insular cortex) take a ‘default role’ because these are not modulated in their activity by demands or the complexity of event file coding processes. In contrast, regions in the motor cortex, middle frontal, temporal, and superior parietal cortices were not activated by ‘default’ but revealed modulations depending on the complexity of perception‐action integration (i.e., whether an event file has to be reconfigured). Perception‐action integration thus reflects a multi‐region processing of specific fractions of information in the neurophysiological signal. This needs to be taken into account when further developing a cognitive science framework detailing perception‐action integration.

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

“…A unifying explanation of these results suggests that the insula cortex is critical for both routes and is involved in distinct cognitive subprocesses during response cancellation. This aligns with the suggestion that the insula cortex functions as a brain hub, relaying neural information from and toward different neural systems (Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2022;Gogolla, 2017). The TEC framework could also provide a complementary explanation of these results.…”

“…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).…”

“…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.…”

Towards a systematization of brain oscillatory activity in actions

“…Crucially, and due to biophysical peculiarities of high-frequency oscillations, such binding processes are confined to circumscribed cortical regions and play an essential role in sensory object representation and processing 104 . Because event-files can be conceived as a network of feature representations 43 spanning multiple cortical regions 69,[105][106][107] , GBA is unlikely to play a role in all aspects of event-file binding. Yet, it can well play a role in constituting the representations of sensory information within an event-file (note: the event-file contains sensory feature representations that are bound to motor feature representations).…”

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

“…Crucially, the event file concept assumes distributed processing of perceptual and motor aspects during goal-directed action control (Hommel, 2004). In line with that, very recent findings reveal that event file processing likely reflects a multi-region processing of specific fractions of information in the neurophysiological signal (Gholamipourbarogh et al, 2022). Using the event file concept, it has been argued that Simon task effects emerge due to an overlap of stimulus features codes specifying different motor responses (Hommel, 2011).…”