The role of alpha oscillations in deriving and maintaining spatial relations in working memory

Blacker, Kara J.; Ikkai, Akiko; Lakshmanan, Balaji M.; Ewen, Joshua B.; Courtney, Susan

doi:10.3758/s13415-016-0439-y

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Matrix reasoning tasks that are typically used to assess Gf also involve extracting relational information between stimuli (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990). Previous work from our group has demonstrated a neural dissociation between maintaining concrete and relational information in WM (Ackerman & Courtney, 2012; Blacker & Courtney, 2016; Blacker, Ikkai, Lakshmanan, Ewen, & Courtney, 2016; Ikkai, Blacker, Lakshmanan, Ewen, & Courtney, 2014). Specifically, these studies have shown that maintaining a concrete piece of sensory information, such as a spatial location, is supported by distinct neural substrates as compared to maintaining a spatial relationship that is independent of the original sensory location.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…More specifically, in two related studies, our group has found that when participants maintain a spatial relation in WM, compared to a spatial location, there is an increase in posterior alpha power (Blacker et al, 2016; Ikkai et al, 2014). This increase in posterior alpha power has been interpreted as representing suppression of sensory brain regions because the sensory information (i.e., the spatial locations) is no longer task-relevant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This increase in posterior alpha power has been interpreted as representing suppression of sensory brain regions because the sensory information (i.e., the spatial locations) is no longer task-relevant. In addition to differences in posterior alpha, our previous work has also shown that there is greater frontal alpha power when a relationship is being maintained in WM compared to a location, as well as increased frontal-posterior phase synchrony (Blacker et al, 2016). Therefore, if dual n-back and complex span differentially rely on relational WM, and if dual n-back training strengthens relational WM, then changes in alpha power may represent a neural marker of improvement that would be greater for dual n-back training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Working memory (WM) is the ability to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information in the absence of sensory input. While its improvement through training is of great interest, the degree to which WM training transfers to untrained WM tasks (near transfer) and other untrained cognitive skills (far transfer) remains debated and the mechanism(s) underlying transfer are unclear. Here we hypothesized that a critical feature of dual n-back training is its reliance on maintaining relational information in WM. In Experiment 1, using an individual differences approach, we found evidence that performance on an n-back task was predicted by performance on a measure of relational WM (i.e., WM for vertical spatial relationships independent of absolute spatial locations); whereas the same was not true for a complex span WM task. In Experiment 2, we tested the idea that reliance on relational WM is critical to produce transfer from n-back but not complex span task training. Participants completed adaptive training on either a dual n-back task, a symmetry span task, or on a non-WM active control task. We found evidence of near transfer for the dual n-back group; however, far transfer to a measure of fluid intelligence did not emerge. Recording EEG during a separate WM transfer task, we examined group-specific, training-related changes in alpha power, which are proposed to be sensitive to WM demands and top-down modulation of WM. Results indicated that the dual n-back group showed significantly greater frontal alpha power after training compared to before training, more so than both other groups. However, we found no evidence of improvement on measures of relational WM for the dual n-back group, suggesting that near transfer may not be dependent on relational WM. These results suggest that dual n-back and complex span task training may differ in their effectiveness to elicit near transfer as well as in the underlying neural changes they facilitate.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These forms of abstract information must be extracted from sensory stimuli in some way and then maintained in WM. Recent work has begun to suggest that maintaining abstract, non-sensory information in WM relies on distinct neural mechanisms than maintaining concrete, sensory information in WM (Badre, 2008; Montojo and Courtney, 2008; Ackerman and Courtney, 2012; Bahlmann et al, 2014; Ikkai et al, 2014; Libby et al, 2014; Blacker et al, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two recent electroencephalography (EEG) studies began to investigate this question and found that maintaining abstract spatial relations in WM resulted in increased alpha (8–13 Hz) power over posterior brain regions, as compared to maintaining concrete, spatial locations in WM (Ikkai et al, 2014; Blacker et al, 2016). Recent evidence suggests that alpha oscillations play a direct role in selective attention and WM, particularly in the suppression of brain regions responsible for processing task-irrelevant information (Worden et al, 2000; Fu et al, 2001; Kelly et al, 2006; Jokisch and Jensen, 2007; Rihs et al, 2007; Sauseng et al, 2009; Jensen and Mazaheri, 2010; van Dijk et al, 2010; Bengson et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct Neural Substrates for Maintaining Locations and Spatial Relations in Working Memory

Blacker

Courtney

2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work has demonstrated a distinction between maintenance of two types of spatial information in working memory (WM): spatial locations and spatial relations. While a body of work has investigated the neural mechanisms of sensory-based information like spatial locations, little is known about how spatial relations are maintained in WM. In two experiments, we used fMRI to investigate the involvement of early visual cortex in the maintenance of spatial relations in WM. In both experiments, we found less quadrant-specific BOLD activity in visual cortex when a single spatial relation, compared to a single spatial location, was held in WM. Also across both experiments, we found a consistent set of brain regions that were differentially activated during maintenance of locations vs. relations. Maintaining a location, compared to a relation, was associated with greater activity in typical spatial WM regions like posterior parietal cortex and prefrontal regions. Whereas maintaining a relation, compared to a location, was associated with greater activity in the parahippocampal gyrus and precuneus/retrosplenial cortex. Further, in Experiment 2 we manipulated WM load and included trials where participants had to maintain three spatial locations or relations. Under this high load condition, the regions sensitive to locations vs. relations were somewhat different than under low load. We also identified regions that were sensitive to load specifically for location or relation maintenance, as well as overlapping regions sensitive to load more generally. These results suggest that the neural substrates underlying WM maintenance of spatial locations and relations are distinct from one another and that the neural representations of these distinct types of spatial information change with load.

show abstract