The system‐neurophysiological basis for how methylphenidate modulates perceptual–attentional conflicts during auditory processing

Abstract

The ability to selectively perceive and flexibly attend to relevant sensory signals in the environment is essential for action control. Whereas neuromodulation of sensory or attentional processing is often investigated, neuromodulation of interactive effects between perception and attention, that is, high attentional control demand when the relevant sensory information is perceptually less salient than the irrelevant one, is not well understood. To fill this gap, this pharmacological-electroencephalogram (EEG) study applied an intensity-modulated, focused-attention dichotic listening paradigm together with temporal EEG signal decomposition and source localization analyses. We used a double-blind MPH/placebo crossover design to delineate the effects of methylphenidate (MPH)-a dopamine/norepinephrine transporter blocker-on the resolution of perceptual-attentional conflicts, when perceptual saliency and attentional focus favor opposing ears, in healthy young adults. We show that MPH increased behavioral performance specifically in the condition with the most pronounced conflict between perceptual saliency and attentional focus. On the neurophysiological level, MPH effects in line with the behavioral data were observed after accounting for intraindividual variability in the signal. More specifically, MPH did not show an effect on stimulus-related processes but modulated the onset latency of processes between stimulus evaluation and responding. These modulations were further shown to be associated with activation differences in the temporoparietal junction (BA40) and the superior parietal cortex (BA7) and may reflect neuronal gain modulation principles. The findings provide mechanistic insights into the role of modulated dopamine/norepinephrine transmitter systems for the interactions between perception and attention.

On the relevance of EEG resting theta activity for the neurophysiological dynamics underlying motor inhibitory control

“…Previous data has already suggested that BA7 and BA39 are involved in inhibitory control when these processes are modulated by perceptual conflicts (Bodmer & Beste, 2017). Parietal areas seem to be involved in cognitive control whenever sensory information is complex or conflicting yet essential for behavioral control (Adelhöfer et al, 2018;Fokin et al, 2008;Ocklenburg et al, 2011;Takeichi et al, 2010). This notion fits in well with findings showing that BA40 and BA7 bridge perception and action (Gottlieb, 2007) and that elevated demands on conflict monitoring involve the superior and inferior parietal cortices (Gothelf et al, 2007).…”

“…Processes related to the conflict monitoring modulate theta activity (Cohen & Donner, 2013;Lavallee et al, 2014;Tang et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2014). Parietal areas seem to be involved in cognitive control whenever sensory information is complex or conflicting yet essential for behavioral control (Adelhöfer et al, 2018;Fokin et al, 2008;Ocklenburg et al, 2011;Takeichi et al, 2010). Importantly, however, the current data show that the strength of resting theta band power plays a decisive role in the modulation of cognitive control-related total theta band activity, especially during conflict-modulated response inhibition.…”

“…However, as mentioned above, evidence indicates that successful response inhibition performance is associated with elevated (event-related) theta band activity Dippel et al, 2016, 2017Huster et al, 2013Liu et al, 2014;Müller et al, 2017;Vahid et al, 2018). The reason is that superior prefrontal areas are well-known to be an important structure in a cortical network subserving inhibitory control (Bari & Robbins, 2013;Hung, Gaillard, Yarmak, & Arsalidou, 2018;Obeso et al, 2017;Xu et al, 2017), and that parietal regions become involved when conflicting sensory information modulated behavioral control (Adelhöfer et al, 2018;Bodmer & Beste, 2017;Fokin et al, 2008;Gothelf et al, 2007;Ocklenburg, Güntürkün, & Beste, 2011;Takeichi et al, 2010). Based on this, it is conceivable that there are stronger effects of conflicting information during inhibitory control in the low baseline and low modulation groups compared to the high baseline and high modulation groups at the behavioral and neurophysiological level.…”

“…On a functional neuroanatomical level, these modulations (especially in the total theta power) may be associated with superior prefrontal and parietal structures. The reason is that superior prefrontal areas are well-known to be an important structure in a cortical network subserving inhibitory control (Bari & Robbins, 2013;Hung, Gaillard, Yarmak, & Arsalidou, 2018;Obeso et al, 2017;Xu et al, 2017), and that parietal regions become involved when conflicting sensory information modulated behavioral control (Adelhöfer et al, 2018;Bodmer & Beste, 2017;Fokin et al, 2008;Gothelf et al, 2007;Ocklenburg, Güntürkün, & Beste, 2011;Takeichi et al, 2010).…”

Neurophysiological coding of statistical and deterministic rule information

“…The P3 ERP-component seems to be sensitive only to rule-based differences and not to statistical properties (Kóbor et al, 2018). In the EEG, the N2 is not a unitary component: it can be divided into different subcomponents related to cognitive control and stimulus-related detection of novelty information processing (Adelhöfer et al, 2018(Adelhöfer et al, , 2019Chmielewski et al, 2018;Folstein and Van Petten, 2008b;Mückschel et al, 2017a). Specifically, subprocesses in the N2 time window that are affected by stimulus-related information can be expected to show sensitivity to statistical learning.…”