The Experts below are selected from a list of 22911 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Chiangshan R Li - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Imaging the effects of age on Proactive Control in healthy adults
Brain Imaging and Behavior, 2019Co-Authors: Sien Hu, Samantha K. Jenks, Herta H. Chao, Chiangshan R LiAbstract:Previous research has reported reduced efficiency in reactive inhibition, along with reduced brain activations, in older adults. The current study investigated age-related behavioral and neural changes in Proactive inhibition, and whether age may influence the relationship between Proactive and reactive inhibition. One-hundred-and-forty-nine adults (18 to 72 years) underwent fMRI while performing a stop signal task (SST). Proactive inhibition was defined by the sequential effect, the correlation between the estimated probability of stop signal – p(Stop) – and go trial reaction time (goRT). P(Stop) was estimated trial by trial with a Bayesian belief model; reactive inhibition was defined by the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). Behaviorally the magnitude of sequential effect was not correlated with age, replicating earlier reports of spared Proactive Control in older adults. Age was associated with greater activations to p(Stop) in the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, and cerebellum, and activations to goRT in the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG). Granger Causality analysis demonstrated that the PFC Granger caused IOG, with the PFC-IOG connectivity significantly correlated with p(Stop) in older but not younger adults. These findings suggest that the PFC and IOG activations and PFC-IOG connectivity may compensate for Proactive Control during aging. In contrast, while the activations of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and caudate head to p(Stop) were negatively correlated with SSRT, relating Proactive to reactive Control, these activities did not vary with age. These findings highlighted distinct neural processes underlying Proactive inhibition and limited neural plasticity to support cognitive Control in the aging brain.
-
Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2018Co-Authors: Wuyi Wang, Sien Hu, Angela J Yu, Simon Zhornitsky, Sheng Zhang, Chiangshan R LiAbstract:In a study of the stop signal task (SST) we employed Bayesian modeling to compute the estimated likelihood of stop signal or P(Stop) trial by trial and identified regional processes of conflict anticipation and response slowing. A higher P(Stop) is associated with prolonged go trial reaction time (goRT)-a form of sequential effect-and reflects Proactive Control of motor response. However, some individuals do not demonstrate a sequential effect despite similar go and stop success (SS) rates. We posited that motor preparation may disrupt Proactive Control more in certain individuals than others. Specifically, the time interval between trial and go signal onset-the fore-period (FP)-varies across trials and a longer FP is associated with a higher level of motor preparation and shorter goRT. Greater motor preparatory activities may disrupt Proactive Control. To test this hypothesis, we compared brain activations and Granger causal connectivities of 81 adults who demonstrated a sequential effect (SEQ) and 35 who did not (nSEQ). SEQ and nSEQ did not differ in regional activations to conflict anticipation, motor preparation, goRT slowing or goRT speeding. In contrast, SEQ and nSEQ demonstrated different patterns of Granger causal connectivities. P(Stop) and FP activations shared reciprocal influence in SEQ but FP activities Granger caused P(Stop) activities unidirectionally in nSEQ, and FP activities Granger caused goRT speeding activities in nSEQ but not SEQ. These findings support the hypothesis that motor preparation disrupts Proactive Control in nSEQ and provide direct neural evidence for interactive go and stop processes.
-
the right superior frontal gyrus and individual variation in Proactive Control of impulsive response
The Journal of Neuroscience, 2016Co-Authors: Sien Hu, Sheng Zhang, Chiangshan R LiAbstract:A hallmark of cognitive Control is the ability to rein in impulsive responses. Previously, we used a Bayesian model to describe trial-by-trial likelihood of the stop signal or p(Stop) and related regional activations to p(Stop) to response slowing in a stop signal task. Here, we characterized the regional processes of conflict anticipation in association with intersubject variation in impulse Control in 114 young adults. We computed the stop signal reaction time (SSRT) and a measure of motor urgency, indexed by the reaction time (RT) difference between go and stop error trials or “GoRT − SERT,” where GoRT is the go trial RT and SERT is the stop error RT. Motor urgency and SSRT were positively correlated across subjects. A linear regression identified regional activations to p(Stop), each in correlation with SSRT and motor urgency. We hypothesized that shared neural activities mediate the correlation between motor urgency and SSRT in Proactive Control of impulsivity. Activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex and right superior frontal gyrus (SFG) during conflict anticipation correlated negatively with the SSRT. Activation of the right SFG also correlated negatively with GoRT − SERT. Therefore, activation of the right SFG was associated with more efficient response inhibition and less motor urgency. A mediation analysis showed that right SFG activation to conflict anticipation mediates the correlation between SSRT and motor urgency bidirectionally. The current results highlight a specific role of the right SFG in translating conflict anticipation to the Control of impulsive response, which is consistent with earlier studies suggesting its function in action restraint. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Individuals vary in impulse Control. However, the neural bases underlying individual variation in Proactive Control of impulsive responses remain unknown. Here, in a large sample of young adults, we showed that activation of the right superior frontal gyrus (SFG) during conflict anticipation is positively correlated with the capacity of inhibitory Control and negatively with motor urgency in the stop signal task. Importantly, activity of the right SFG mediates the counteracting processes of inhibitory Control and motor urgency across subjects. The results support a unique role of the right SFG in individual variation in cognitive Control.
Sien Hu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Imaging the effects of age on Proactive Control in healthy adults
Brain Imaging and Behavior, 2019Co-Authors: Sien Hu, Samantha K. Jenks, Herta H. Chao, Chiangshan R LiAbstract:Previous research has reported reduced efficiency in reactive inhibition, along with reduced brain activations, in older adults. The current study investigated age-related behavioral and neural changes in Proactive inhibition, and whether age may influence the relationship between Proactive and reactive inhibition. One-hundred-and-forty-nine adults (18 to 72 years) underwent fMRI while performing a stop signal task (SST). Proactive inhibition was defined by the sequential effect, the correlation between the estimated probability of stop signal – p(Stop) – and go trial reaction time (goRT). P(Stop) was estimated trial by trial with a Bayesian belief model; reactive inhibition was defined by the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). Behaviorally the magnitude of sequential effect was not correlated with age, replicating earlier reports of spared Proactive Control in older adults. Age was associated with greater activations to p(Stop) in the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, and cerebellum, and activations to goRT in the inferior occipital gyrus (IOG). Granger Causality analysis demonstrated that the PFC Granger caused IOG, with the PFC-IOG connectivity significantly correlated with p(Stop) in older but not younger adults. These findings suggest that the PFC and IOG activations and PFC-IOG connectivity may compensate for Proactive Control during aging. In contrast, while the activations of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and caudate head to p(Stop) were negatively correlated with SSRT, relating Proactive to reactive Control, these activities did not vary with age. These findings highlighted distinct neural processes underlying Proactive inhibition and limited neural plasticity to support cognitive Control in the aging brain.
-
Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2018Co-Authors: Wuyi Wang, Sien Hu, Angela J Yu, Simon Zhornitsky, Sheng Zhang, Chiangshan R LiAbstract:In a study of the stop signal task (SST) we employed Bayesian modeling to compute the estimated likelihood of stop signal or P(Stop) trial by trial and identified regional processes of conflict anticipation and response slowing. A higher P(Stop) is associated with prolonged go trial reaction time (goRT)-a form of sequential effect-and reflects Proactive Control of motor response. However, some individuals do not demonstrate a sequential effect despite similar go and stop success (SS) rates. We posited that motor preparation may disrupt Proactive Control more in certain individuals than others. Specifically, the time interval between trial and go signal onset-the fore-period (FP)-varies across trials and a longer FP is associated with a higher level of motor preparation and shorter goRT. Greater motor preparatory activities may disrupt Proactive Control. To test this hypothesis, we compared brain activations and Granger causal connectivities of 81 adults who demonstrated a sequential effect (SEQ) and 35 who did not (nSEQ). SEQ and nSEQ did not differ in regional activations to conflict anticipation, motor preparation, goRT slowing or goRT speeding. In contrast, SEQ and nSEQ demonstrated different patterns of Granger causal connectivities. P(Stop) and FP activations shared reciprocal influence in SEQ but FP activities Granger caused P(Stop) activities unidirectionally in nSEQ, and FP activities Granger caused goRT speeding activities in nSEQ but not SEQ. These findings support the hypothesis that motor preparation disrupts Proactive Control in nSEQ and provide direct neural evidence for interactive go and stop processes.
-
the right superior frontal gyrus and individual variation in Proactive Control of impulsive response
The Journal of Neuroscience, 2016Co-Authors: Sien Hu, Sheng Zhang, Chiangshan R LiAbstract:A hallmark of cognitive Control is the ability to rein in impulsive responses. Previously, we used a Bayesian model to describe trial-by-trial likelihood of the stop signal or p(Stop) and related regional activations to p(Stop) to response slowing in a stop signal task. Here, we characterized the regional processes of conflict anticipation in association with intersubject variation in impulse Control in 114 young adults. We computed the stop signal reaction time (SSRT) and a measure of motor urgency, indexed by the reaction time (RT) difference between go and stop error trials or “GoRT − SERT,” where GoRT is the go trial RT and SERT is the stop error RT. Motor urgency and SSRT were positively correlated across subjects. A linear regression identified regional activations to p(Stop), each in correlation with SSRT and motor urgency. We hypothesized that shared neural activities mediate the correlation between motor urgency and SSRT in Proactive Control of impulsivity. Activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex and right superior frontal gyrus (SFG) during conflict anticipation correlated negatively with the SSRT. Activation of the right SFG also correlated negatively with GoRT − SERT. Therefore, activation of the right SFG was associated with more efficient response inhibition and less motor urgency. A mediation analysis showed that right SFG activation to conflict anticipation mediates the correlation between SSRT and motor urgency bidirectionally. The current results highlight a specific role of the right SFG in translating conflict anticipation to the Control of impulsive response, which is consistent with earlier studies suggesting its function in action restraint. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Individuals vary in impulse Control. However, the neural bases underlying individual variation in Proactive Control of impulsive responses remain unknown. Here, in a large sample of young adults, we showed that activation of the right superior frontal gyrus (SFG) during conflict anticipation is positively correlated with the capacity of inhibitory Control and negatively with motor urgency in the stop signal task. Importantly, activity of the right SFG mediates the counteracting processes of inhibitory Control and motor urgency across subjects. The results support a unique role of the right SFG in individual variation in cognitive Control.
Marius Usher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
task conflict and Proactive Control a computational theory of the stroop task
Psychological Review, 2017Co-Authors: Eyal Kalanthroff, Eddy J. Davelaar, Avishai Henik, Liat Goldfarb, Marius UsherAbstract:The Stroop task is a central experimental paradigm used to probe cognitive Control by measuring the ability of participants to selectively attend to task-relevant information and inhibit automatic task-irrelevant responses. Research has revealed variability in both experimental manipulations and individual differences. Here, we focus on a particular source of Stroop variability, the reverse-facilitation (RF; faster responses to nonword neutral stimuli than to congruent stimuli), which has recently been suggested as a signature of task conflict. We first review the literature that shows RF variability in the Stroop task, both with regard to experimental manipulations and to individual differences. We suggest that task conflict variability can be understood as resulting from the degree of Proactive Control that subjects recruit in advance of the Stroop stimulus. When the Proactive Control is high, task conflict does not arise (or is resolved very quickly), resulting in regular Stroop facilitation. When Proactive Control is low, task conflict emerges, leading to a slow-down in congruent and incongruent (but not in neutral) trials and thus to Stroop RF. To support this suggestion, we present a computational model of the Stroop task, which includes the resolution of task conflict and its modulation by Proactive Control. Results show that our model (a) accounts for the variability in Stroop-RF reported in the experimental literature, and (b) solves a challenge to previous Stroop models-their ability to account for reaction time distributional properties. Finally, we discuss theoretical implications to Stroop measures and Control deficits observed in some psychopathologies. (PsycINFO Database Record
-
Stroop Proactive Control and task conflict are modulated by concurrent working memory load
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2014Co-Authors: Eyal Kalanthroff, Eddy J. Davelaar, Avishai Henik, Amir Avnit, Marius UsherAbstract:Performance on the Stroop task reflects two types of conflict—informational (between the incongruent word and font color) and task (between the contextually relevant color-naming task and the irrelevant, but automatic, word-reading task). According to the dual mechanisms of Control theory (DMC; Braver, 2012), variability in Stroop performance can result from variability in the deployment of a Proactive task-demand Control mechanism. Previous research has shown that when Proactive Control (PC) is diminished, both increased Stroop interference and a reversed Stroop facilitation (RF) are observed. Although the current DMC model accounts for the former effect, it does not predict the observed RF, which is considered to be behavioral evidence for task conflict in the Stroop task. Here we expanded the DMC model to account for Stroop RF. Assuming that a concurrent working memory (WM) task reduces PC, we predicted both increased interference and an RF. Nineteen participants performed a standard Stroop task combined with a concurrent n-back task, which was aimed at reducing available WM resources, and thus overloading PC. Although the results indicated common Stroop interference and facilitation in the low-load condition (zero-back), in the high-load condition (two-back), both increased Stroop interference and RF were observed, consistent with the model’s prediction. These findings indicate that PC is modulated by concurrent WM load and serves as a common Control mechanism for both informational and task Stroop conflicts.
Thomas S. Redick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Working memory capacity and intra-individual variability of Proactive Control.
Acta psychologica, 2017Co-Authors: Elizabeth A. Wiemers, Thomas S. RedickAbstract:Two datasets of 110 young adults were examined to investigate the relationship between individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and dynamic cognitive Control. The results delve into the specific differences between high- and low-WMC individuals' ability to enact and maintain cognitive Control using the AX version of the continuous performance test (AX-CPT). Compared to high-WMC individuals, low-WMC individuals: (a) made more errors, specifically to AX targets; (b) exhibited a partial shift to Proactive Control with more time-on-task; (c) had more exaggerated slower AX target responses in the tail of the response time distribution; and (d) were equally likely to adjust Control after conflict. These results fit with the dual mechanisms of cognitive Control theory and goal-maintenance account, and further clarify how individual differences in WMC manifests as intra-individual variability in cognitive Control.
-
Cognitive Control in context: Working memory capacity and Proactive Control
Acta psychologica, 2013Co-Authors: Thomas S. RedickAbstract:Working memory is important for maintaining critical information in an active state to guide future behavior. The executive-attention theory of working memory capacity (WMC; Engle & Kane, 2004) argues that goal maintenance is important for response selection when stimuli are associated with competing responses. Braver, Burgess, and Gray (2007) have labeled this type of preparatory activity Proactive Control. Previous WMC studies have not allowed individuals to use goal information to prepare a specific response in advance of the stimulus. The current experiment used different versions of a cue-probe task to examine the relationship between individual differences in WMC and Proactive Control. Across three versions of the AX version of the Continuous Performance Test, the proportion of targets was manipulated to affect both the predictive validity of the A cue and the prepotency of the target response to X probes. The results indicated that the high-WMC individuals used the cue information to prepare responses in advance only when a specific probe was likely to occur. In contrast, the performance of the low-WMC individuals was less dependent upon the cue and more contingent upon overall response frequencies. The results indicate that individual differences in WMC are related to Proactive Control and anticipation, and important for translating cognition into action.
Marjorie Solomon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Proactive Control in adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: Unimpaired but associated with symptoms of depression.
Journal of abnormal psychology, 2020Co-Authors: Marie K. Krug, Jeremy Hogeveen, Matthew V. Elliott, Andrew Gordon, Marjorie SolomonAbstract:Although autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by deficits in cognitive Control, our previous work has shown that preparatory, goal-directed cognitive processing (Proactive Control) may be preserved in children with ASD. We investigated whether Proactive Control is intact in adolescents and young adults with ASD, as well as how symptoms of ASD (repetitive behaviors) and psychopathology (Depressive, Anxiety, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems) are related to Proactive Control. Participants were adolescents and young adults with ASD (N = 44) and typical development (TD; N = 44). Proactive Control was assessed using a picture-word Stroop paradigm where participants named animals depicted in drawings while ignoring a superimposed written animal word. Interference effects (reaction time (RT) differences between more difficult incongruent trials, where animal pictures and words prompted different responses, and simpler congruent trials, where animal pictures and words prompted the same response) were calculated for two versions of the Stroop Task: a mostly congruent (MC) block, where the majority of trials were congruent, and a mostly incongruent (MI) block, where most trials were incongruent. Proactive Control was calculated as the reduction in interference in the MI block in comparison to the MC block. Proactive Control did not differ between groups, indicating that Proactive Control is not impaired in adolescents and young adults with ASD. In ASD, depression symptoms were associated with reduced Proactive Control. Future research should investigate the effects of interventions targeting depression as well as interventions targeting Proactive Control processes in individuals with ASD and comorbid depression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
-
Proactive Control as a double-edged sword in autism spectrum disorder.
Journal of abnormal psychology, 2018Co-Authors: Jeremy Hogeveen, Marie K. Krug, Matthew V. Elliott, Cameron S. Carter, Marjorie SolomonAbstract:Proactive Control refers to the active representation of contextual information to bias cognitive processing and facilitate goal-directed behavior. Despite research suggesting that Proactive Control may be impaired in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the associations between Proactive Control and clinical symptoms of ASD remain underspecified. Here, we combined a children's version of the AX Continuous Performance Task (AX-CPT) with gold standard clinical assessments in children with ASD (N = 34) or typical development (TYP; N = 45). After Controlling for full-scale IQ (FSIQ), measures of Proactive Control were similar between ASD and TYP. However, specifically within ASD we observed paradoxical relationships between Proactive Control and clinical symptoms. Increased reliance on Proactive Control was associated with reduced attention problems and increased restricted and repetitive behaviors in ASD. Therefore, Proactive Control appears to represent a double-edged sword in ASD: improved attentional Control at the cost of heightened behavioral inflexibility. This represents a compelling and new characterization of the specific association between cognitive Control processes isolated in computerized laboratory tasks and the multidimensional cognitive symptoms characteristic of ASD. (PsycINFO Database Record
-
Proactive and reactive cognitive Control and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex dysfunction in first episode schizophrenia
NeuroImage: Clinical, 2013Co-Authors: Tyler A. Lesh, Marjorie Solomon, Jong H. Yoon, Michael J. Minzenberg, Andrew J Westphal, Tara A Niendam, Daniel J Ragland, Cameron S. CarterAbstract:Cognitive Control deficits have been consistently documented in patients with schizophrenia. Recent work in cognitive neuroscience has hypothesized a distinction between two theoretically separable modes of cognitive Control—reactive and Proactive. However, it remains unclear the extent to which these processes are uniquely associated with dysfunctional neural recruitment in individuals with schizophrenia. This functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study utilized the color word Stroop task and AX Continuous Performance Task (AX-CPT) to tap reactive and Proactive Control processes, respectively, in a sample of 54 healthy Controls and 43 patients with first episode schizophrenia. Healthy Controls demonstrated robust dorsolateral prefrontal, anterior cingulate, and parietal cortex activity on both tasks. In contrast, patients with schizophrenia did not show any significant activation during Proactive Control, while showing activation similar to Control subjects during reactive Control. Critically, an interaction analysis showed that the degree to which prefrontal activity was reduced in patients versus Controls depended on the type of Control process engaged. Controls showed increased dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and parietal activity in the Proactive compared to the reactive Control task, whereas patients with schizophrenia did not demonstrate this increase. Additionally, patients' DLPFC activity and performance during Proactive Control was associated with disorganization symptoms, while no reactive Control measures showed this association. Proactive Control processes and concomitant dysfunctional recruitment of DLPFC represent robust features of schizophrenia that are also directly associated with symptoms of disorganization.