When three is greater than five: EEG and fMRI signatures of errors in numerical and physical comparisons

Abstract

Unravelling the neural mechanisms, which determine performance accuracy, is one of the key concepts in cognitive neuroscience. When compared to correct responses, shorter reaction times are commonly observed behavioural feature of errors committed in typical conflict tasks. Yet, little is known about the origins of this phenomenon. In this study, EEG and fMRI experiments were conducted using the numerical version of the Stroop paradigm, which yielded unique behavioural outcomes. Particularly, errors in numerical comparison had shorter reaction times than correct trials, whereas physical comparison resulted in the opposite pattern. This criss-crossing interaction effect was used as a marker when exploring time-courses of brain activity. Group independent component analysis was applied to neurophysiological data and event-related analysis was conducted on the components' time-courses. Results revealed one centro-parietal EEG component and one temporo-parietal fMRI neural network, which exhibited significant task and accuracy interactions. Showing linear increase that peaked right after the response onset, the activity of centro-parietal EEG component was linked to the decision variable signal, which reflects a process of accumulating evidence until reaching an actiontriggering threshold. Both amplitude measurements and linear fits to the signal provided evidence for distinctive characteristics between numerical and physical comparisons, thereby explaining the behavioural outcomes: errors are committed due to accumulation of evidence in favour of the other (wrong) task instruction. The architecture of the temporo-parietal network, which comprises bilateral inferior temporal and intraparietal regions, is highly consistent with the recently established core ''number network''. These findings link perceptual decisions with the generalized magnitude system and impart novel insights into the neural determinants of errors in humans.

Conflict- and error-related theta activities are coupled to BOLD signals in different brain regions

“…Regarding the neural substrate for error processing, there is little controversy. In line with the EEG source analysis, the aMCC was found a brain locus for a greater activity for erroneous trials than correct ones (Beldzik et al, 2018;Holroyd et al, 2004;Iannaccone et al, 2015;Wessel et al, 2012) in line with current aMCC accounts suggesting its central role in signaling surprise and the need for adaptive behavior (Ullsperger et al, 2014;Vassena et al, 2020). Interestingly, other fMRI studies provided evidence that the preSMA activity is sensitive to congruency effect (Iannaccone et al, 2015;Nachev et al, 2008;Ullsperger and Von Cramon, 2001) and unbiased by the RT effect (Beldzik et al, 2015b).…”

Linking visual gamma to task‐related brain networks—a simultaneous EEG‐fMRI study

“…The middle occipital cortex putatively supports sensory processing, especially in the case of novel stimuli (Gur et al, 2007;Kiehl, Laurens, Duty, Forster, & Liddle, 2001 precuneus is involved in a wide spectrum of cognitive tasks, including visuo-spatial imagery, episodic memory retrieval, and self-processing operations (Cavanna & Trimble, 2006). However, in this case, its activation, together with adjacent bilateral intraparietal sulci, supports the idea of a transition from the exogenous attentional state, required for the visual perceptual decision, to form response strategies during goaldirected behavior (Beldzik et al, 2018;Paulus et al, 2001;Walz et al, 2014). Finally, bilateral anterior insular and anterior cingulate cortices are crucial for evidence accumulation and decision signaling in perceptual decision-making tasks (Krueger et al, 2017;Rebola, Castelhano, Ferreira, & Castelo-Branco, 2012).…”

“…The occipito‐parietal network, which is less commonly observed, involved extensive activations in the occipital and parietal cortices, together with small activations in the bilateral anterior insular and cingulate cortices (Table ). The executive control, dorsal attention, motor, and auditory networks are also commonly observed in the resting and task paradigms (Beckmann et al, ; Beldzik et al, ; Varoquaux et al, ). The fronto‐parietal network was separated into four components and the default mode network into two parts.…”

“…The second research question of this study concerns the networks' architecture. Depending on the task, visual networks often reorganize and exhibit functional connections with many other cortical regions (Beldzik, Domagalik, Gawlowska, Marek, & Mojsa-Kaja, 2018;Domagalik, Beldzik, Fafrowicz, Oginska, & Marek, 2012;Specht & Laeng, 2011;Wu et al, 2009); therefore, regions connected to extrastriate cortex would modulate or be modulated by gamma activity. We aim to explore whether fMRI functional connectivity reveals potential loci of gamma projections beyond the visual cortex.…”

Reproducible Neuronal Components found using Group Independent Component Analysis in Resting State Electroencephalographic Data

“…For example, C4 (which we describe as a parietal component), can be found as a posterior alpha component (Artoni et al, 2014;Delorme et al, 2012;Tsai et al, 2006). Others, have a similar parietal label (Beldzik et al, 2017;Chen et al, 2013;Lai et al, 2012;Lin et al, 2012;Wang et al, 2019Wang et al, , 2020, and naturally some don't label the component at all (Bian et al, 2006;Gholamipour & Ghassemi, 2021;Radüntz et al, 2015). The labeling procedure is subjective, and it is difficult to assess the exact position of the component.…”