Patrick G. Bissett

The Dynamics of Functional Brain Networks: Integrated Network States during Cognitive Task Performance

Higher brain function relies upon the ability to flexibly integrate information across specialized communities of macroscopic brain regions, but it is unclear how this mechanism manifests over time. Here we characterized patterns of time-resolved functional connectivity using resting state and task fMRI data from a large cohort of unrelated subjects. Our results demonstrate that dynamic fluctuations in network structure during the resting state reflect transitions between states of integrated and segregated network topology. These patterns were altered during task performance, demonstrating a higher level of network integration that tracked with the complexity of the task and correlated with effective behavioral performance. Replication analysis demonstrated that these results were reproducible across sessions, sample populations and datasets. Together these results provide insight into the brains coordination between integration and segregation and highlight key principles underlying the reorganization of the network architecture of the brain during both rest and behavior.

Balancing cognitive demands: control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm.

Cognitive control enables flexible interaction with a dynamic environment. In 2 experiments, the authors investigated control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm, a procedure that requires balancing speed (going) and caution (stopping) in a dual-task environment. Focusing on the slowing of go reaction times after stop signals, the authors tested 5 competing hypotheses for post-stop-signal adjustments: goal priority, error detection, conflict monitoring, surprise, and memory. Reaction times increased after both successful and failed inhibition, consistent with the goal priority hypothesis and inconsistent with the error detection and conflict hypotheses. Post-stop-signal slowing was greater if the go task stimulus repeated on consecutive trials, suggesting a contribution of memory. We also found evidence for slowing based on more than the immediately preceding stop signal. Post-stop-signal slowing was greater when stop signals occurred more frequently (Experiment 1), inconsistent with the surprise hypothesis, and when inhibition failed more frequently (Experiment 2). This suggests that more global manipulations encompassing many trials affect post-stop-signal adjustments.

Selective Stopping? Maybe Not

Selective stopping paradigms address selectivity in controlled behavior, as subjects stop certain responses or responses to certain stimuli. The literature has discussed 2 strategies for selective stopping. First, selective stopping may prolong the stop process by adding a discrimination stage (Independent Discriminate then Stop). Second, selective stopping may involve stopping nonselectively and then restarting the response if the signal is an ignore signal (Stop then Discriminate). We discovered a variant of the first strategy that occurred often in our experiments and previously published experiments: The requirement to discriminate stop and ignore signals may interact with the go process, invalidating the independent race model (Dependent Discriminate then Stop). Our experiments focused on stimulus selective stopping, in which subjects stop to one signal and ignore another. When stop and ignore signals were equally likely, some subjects used the Stop then Discriminate strategy and others used the Dependent Discriminate then Stop strategy. When stop signals were more frequent than ignore signals, most subjects used the Stop then Discriminate strategy; when ignore signals were more frequent than stop signals, most subjects used the Dependent Discriminate then Stop strategy. The commonly accepted Independent Discriminate then Stop strategy was seldom implemented. Selective stopping was either not selective (Stop then Discriminate), or interacted with going (Dependent Discriminate then Stop). Implications for the cognitive science, lifespan development, clinical science, and neuroscience of selective stopping are discussed.

Post-Stop-Signal Adjustments: Inhibition Improves Subsequent Inhibition.

Performance in the stop-signal paradigm involves a balance between going and stopping, and one way that this balance is struck is through shifting priority away from the go task, slowing responses after a stop signal, and improving the probability of inhibition. In 6 experiments, the authors tested whether there is a corresponding shift in priority toward the stop task, speeding reaction time to the stop signal. Consistent with this hypothesis, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) decreased on the trial immediately following a stop signal in each experiment. Experiments 2-4 used 2 very different stop signals within a modality, and stopping improved when the stop stimulus repeated and alternated. Experiments 5 and 6 presented stop signals in different modalities and showed that SSRT improved only when the stop stimulus repeated within a modality. These results demonstrate within-modality post-stop-signal speeding of response inhibition.

Post-Stop-Signal Slowing: Strategies Dominate Reflexes and Implicit Learning.

Control adjustments are necessary to balance competing cognitive demands. One task that is well-suited to explore control adjustments is the stop-signal paradigm, in which subjects must balance initiation and inhibition. One common adjustment in the stop-signal paradigm is post-stop-signal slowing. Existing models of sequential adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm suggest that post-stop-signal slowing may be based solely on the events of the previous trial, suggesting that post-stop-signal slowing is a reflexive byproduct of a stop signal. Alternatively, post-stop-signal slowing could be the result of implicit learning or strategic adjustment. The authors report three experiments that manipulated the probability of stop trial repetition and found that these contingencies eliminate, reverse, or greatly increase post-stop-signal slowing. When the contingency was not instructed or cued, modest adjustments of post-stop-signal slowing occurred, suggesting implicit learning. When the contingency was cued, performance adjustments occurred on the next trial, suggesting that strategies dominated post-stop-signal slowing. These results show that post-stop-signal slowing is not a reflexive byproduct of the stop signal. The large changes in strategy accompany large changes in task factors, suggesting that the modest post-stop-signal slowing usually observed may be a result of the relatively static task environment that does not encourage large strategic changes.

Stopping while Going! Response Inhibition Does Not Suffer Dual-Task Interference

Although dual-task interference is ubiquitous in a variety of task domains, stop-signal studies suggest that response inhibition is not subject to such interference. Nevertheless, no study has directly examined stop-signal performance in a dual-task setting. In two experiments, stop-signal performance was examined in a psychological refractory period task, in which subjects inhibited one response while still executing the other. The results showed little evidence for the refractory effect in stop-signal reaction time, and stop-signal reaction time was similar in dual-task and single-task conditions, despite the fact that overt reaction times were significantly affected by dual-task interference. Therefore, the present study supports the claim that response inhibition does not suffer dual-task interference.

Dissociating Interference-Control Processes between Memory and Response

The ability to mitigate interference is of central importance to cognition. Previous research has provided conflicting accounts about whether operations that resolve interference are singular in character or form a family of functions. Here, the authors examined the relationship between interference-resolution processes acting on working memory representations versus responses. The authors combined multiple forms of interference into a single paradigm by merging a directed-forgetting task, which induces proactive interference, with a stop-signal task, which taps response inhibition processes. The results demonstrated that proactive interference and response inhibition produced distinct behavioral signatures that did not interact. By contrast, combining two different measures of response inhibition by merging a go/no-go task variant and a stop signal produced overadditive behavioral interference, demonstrating that different forms of response inhibition tap the same processes. However, not all forms of response conflict interacted, suggesting that inhibition-related functions acting on response selection are dissociable from those acting on response inhibition. These results suggest that inhibition-related functions for memory and responses are dissociable.

The Experiment Factory: Standardizing Behavioral Experiments.

The administration of behavioral and experimental paradigms for psychology research is hindered by lack of a coordinated effort to develop and deploy standardized paradigms. While several frameworks (Mason and Suri, 2011; McDonnell et al., 2012; de Leeuw, 2015; Lange et al., 2015) have provided infrastructure and methods for individual research groups to develop paradigms, missing is a coordinated effort to develop paradigms linked with a system to easily deploy them. This disorganization leads to redundancy in development, divergent implementations of conceptually identical tasks, disorganized and error-prone code lacking documentation, and difficulty in replication. The ongoing reproducibility crisis in psychology and neuroscience research (Baker, 2015; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) highlights the urgency of this challenge: reproducible research in behavioral psychology is conditional on deployment of equivalent experiments. A large, accessible repository of experiments for researchers to develop collaboratively is most efficiently accomplished through an open source framework. Here we present the Experiment Factory, an open source framework for the development and deployment of web-based experiments. The modular infrastructure includes experiments, virtual machines for local or cloud deployment, and an application to drive these components and provide developers with functions and tools for further extension. We release this infrastructure with a deployment (http://www.expfactory.org) that researchers are currently using to run a set of over 80 standardized web-based experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. By providing open source tools for both deployment and development, this novel infrastructure holds promise to bring reproducibility to the administration of experiments, and accelerate scientific progress by providing a shared community resource of psychological paradigms.

Generalized motor inhibitory deficit in Parkinson’s disease patients who freeze

Freezing of gait is a disabling symptom of Parkinson’s disease (PD) that involves failure to initiate and continue motor activity appropriately. PD disrupts fronto-basal ganglia circuitries that also implement the inhibition of responses, leading to the hypothesis that freezing of gait may involve fundamental changes in both initiation and inhibition of motor actions. We asked whether PD patients who show freezing of gait show selective deficits in their ability to inhibit upper and lower extremity reactions. We compared older healthy controls, older PD controls without freezing of gait, and older PD participants with freezing of gait, in stop-signal tasks that measured the initiation (go trials) and inhibition (stop trials) of both hand and foot responses. When only go trials were presented, all three groups showed similar initiation speeds across lower and upper extremity responses. When stop-signal trials were introduced, both PD groups slowed their reactions nearly twice as much as healthy controls. While this adjustment helped PD controls stop their actions as quickly as healthy controls, PD patients with freezing showed significantly delayed inhibitory control of both upper and lower extremities. When anticipating the need to stop their actions urgently, PD patients show greater adjustments (i.e., slowing) to reaction speed than healthy controls. Despite these proactive adjustments, PD patients who freeze show marked impairments in inhibiting both upper and lower extremity responses, suggesting that freezing may involve a fundamental disruption to the brain’s inhibitory control system.

Stop before you leap: Changing eye and hand movements requires stopping

The search-step paradigm addresses the processes involved in changing movement plans, usually saccadic eye-movements. Subjects move their eyes to a target (T1) among distractors, but when the target steps to a new location (T2), subjects are instructed to move their eyes directly from fixation to the new location. We ask whether moving to T2 requires a separate stop process that inhibits the movement to T1. It need not. The movement plan for the second response may inhibit the first response. To distinguish these hypotheses, we decoupled the offset of T1 from the onset of T2. If the second movement is sufficient to inhibit the first, then the probability of responding to T1 should depend only on T2 onset. If a separate stop process is required, then the probability of responding to T1 should depend only on T1 offset, which acts as a stop signal. We tested these hypotheses in manual and saccadic search-step tasks and found that the probability of responding to T1 depended most strongly on T1 offset, supporting the hypothesis that changing from one movement plan to another involves a separate stop process that inhibits the first plan.