Frontal midline theta differentiates separate cognitive control strategies while still generalizing the need for cognitive control
Abstract Cognitive control processes encompass many distinct components, including response inhibition (stopping a prepotent response), proactive control (using prior information to enact control), reactive control (last-minute changing of a prepotent response), and conflict monitoring (choosing bet...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/2627330a0c364865ad37ec37b55b109b |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Cognitive control processes encompass many distinct components, including response inhibition (stopping a prepotent response), proactive control (using prior information to enact control), reactive control (last-minute changing of a prepotent response), and conflict monitoring (choosing between two competing responses). While frontal midline theta activity is theorized to be a general marker of the need for cognitive control, a stringent test of this hypothesis would require a quantitative, within-subject comparison of the neural activation patterns indexing many different cognitive control strategies, an experiment lacking in the current literature. We recorded EEG from 176 participants as they performed tasks that tested inhibitory control (Go/Nogo Task), proactive and reactive control (AX-Continuous Performance Task), and resolving response conflict (Global/Local Task-modified Flanker Task). As activity in the theta (4–8 Hz) frequency band is thought to be a common signature of cognitive control, we assessed frontal midline theta activation underlying each cognitive control strategy. In all strategies, we found higher frontal midline theta power for trials that required more cognitive control (target conditions) versus control conditions. Additionally, reactive control and inhibitory control had higher theta power than proactive control and response conflict, and proactive control had higher theta power than response conflict. Using decoding analyses, we were able to successfully decode control from target trials using classifiers trained exclusively on each of the other strategies, thus firmly demonstrating that theta representations of cognitive control generalize across multiple cognitive control strategies. Our results confirm that frontal midline theta-band activity is a common mechanism for initiating and executing cognitive control, but theta power also differentiates between cognitive control mechanisms. As theta activation reliably differs depending on the cognitive control strategy employed, future work will need to focus on the differential role of theta in differing cognitive control strategies. |
|---|