When Working Memory and Attention Compete: Characterizing the Dynamic Interdependence between our Mental Workspace and External Environment

All of us are taxed with juggling our inner mental lives with immediate external task demands. For many years, the temporary maintenance of internal information was considered to be handled by a dedicated working memory (WM) system. It has recently become increasingly clear, however, that such short-term internal activation interacts with attention focused on external stimuli. It is unclear, however, exactly why these two interact, at what level of processing, and to what degree. Because our internal maintenance and external attention processes co-occur with one another, the manner of their interaction has vast implications for functioning in daily life. The work described here has employed original experimental paradigms combining WM and attention task elements, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to illuminate the associated neural processes, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to clarify the causal substrates of attentional brain function. These studies have examined a mechanism that might explain why (and when) the content of WM can involuntarily capture visual attention. They have, furthermore, tested whether fundamental attentional selection processes operate within WM, and whether they are reciprocal with attention. Finally, they have illuminated the neural consequences of competing attentional demands. The findings indicate that WM shares representations, operating principles, and cognitive resources with externally-oriented attention.

Functional parcellation of attentional control regions of the brain.

Recently, a number of investigators have examined the neural loci of psychological processes enabling the control of visual spatial attention using cued-attention paradigms in combination with event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. Findings from these studies have provided strong evidence for the involvement of a fronto-parietal network in attentional control. In the present study, we build upon this previous work to further investigate these attentional control systems. In particular, we employed additional controls for nonattentional sensory and interpretative aspects of cue processing to determine whether distinct regions in the fronto-parietal network are involved in different aspects of cue processing, such as cue-symbol interpretation and attentional orienting. In addition, we used shorter cue-target intervals that were closer to those used in the behavioral and event-related potential cueing literatures. Twenty participants performed a cued spatial attention task while brain activity was recorded with functional magnetic resonance imaging. We found functional specialization for different aspects of cue processing in the lateral and medial subregions of the frontal and parietal cortex. In particular, the medial subregions were more specific to the orienting of visual spatial attention, while the lateral subregions were associated with more general aspects of cue processing, such as cue-symbol interpretation. Additional cue-related effects included differential activations in midline frontal regions and pretarget enhancements in the thalamus and early visual cortical areas.

Attentional Biases in Value-Based Decision-Making

Humans make decisions in highly complex physical, economic and social environments. In order to adaptively choose, the human brain has to learn about- and attend to- sensory cues that provide information about the potential outcome of different courses of action. Here I present three event-related potential (ERP) studies, in which I evaluated the role of the interactions between attention and reward learning in economic decision-making. I focused my analyses on three ERP components (Chap. 1): (1) the N2pc, an early lateralized ERP response reflecting the lateralized focus of visual; (2) the feedback-related negativity (FRN), which reflects the process by which the brain extracts utility from feedback; and (3) the P300 (P3), which reflects the amount of attention devoted to feedback-processing. I found that learned stimulus-reward associations can influence the rapid allocation of attention (N2pc) towards outcome-predicting cues, and that differences in this attention allocation process are associated with individual differences in economic decision performance (Chap. 2). Such individual differences were also linked to differences in neural responses reflecting the amount of attention devoted to processing monetary outcomes (P3) (Chap. 3). Finally, the relative amount of attention devoted to processing rewards for oneself versus others (as reflected by the P3) predicted both charitable giving and self-reported engagement in real-life altruistic behaviors across individuals (Chap. 4). Overall, these findings indicate that attention and reward processing interact and can influence each other in the brain. Moreover, they indicate that individual differences in economic choice behavior are associated both with biases in the manner in which attention is drawn towards sensory cues that inform subsequent choices, and with biases in the way that attention is allocated to learn from the outcomes of recent choices.

Inhibition-Induced Forgetting Results from Resource Competition between Response Inhibition and Memory Encoding Processes.

UNLABELLED: Response inhibition is a key component of executive control, but its relation to other cognitive processes is not well understood. We recently documented the "inhibition-induced forgetting effect": no-go cues are remembered more poorly than go cues. We attributed this effect to central-resource competition, whereby response inhibition saps attention away from memory encoding. However, this proposal is difficult to test with behavioral means alone. We therefore used fMRI in humans to test two neural predictions of the "common resource hypothesis": (1) brain regions associated with response inhibition should exhibit greater resource demands during encoding of subsequently forgotten than remembered no-go cues; and (2) this higher inhibitory resource demand should lead to memory encoding regions having less resources available during encoding of subsequently forgotten no-go cues. Participants categorized face stimuli by gender in a go/no-go task and, following a delay, performed a surprise recognition memory test for those faces. Replicating previous findings, memory was worse for no-go than for go stimuli. Crucially, forgetting of no-go cues was predicted by high inhibitory resource demand, as quantified by the trial-by-trial ratio of activity in neural "no-go" versus "go" networks. Moreover, this index of inhibitory demand exhibited an inverse trial-by-trial relationship with activity in brain regions responsible for the encoding of no-go cues into memory, notably the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. This seesaw pattern between the neural resource demand of response inhibition and activity related to memory encoding directly supports the hypothesis that response inhibition temporarily saps attentional resources away from stimulus processing. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Recent behavioral experiments showed that inhibiting a motor response to a stimulus (a "no-go cue") impairs subsequent memory for that cue. Here, we used fMRI to test whether this "inhibition-induced forgetting effect" is caused by competition for neural resources between the processes of response inhibition and memory encoding. We found that trial-by-trial variations in neural inhibitory resource demand predicted subsequent forgetting of no-go cues and that higher inhibitory demand was furthermore associated with lower concurrent activation in brain regions responsible for successful memory encoding of no-go cues. Thus, motor inhibition and stimulus encoding appear to compete with each other: when more resources have to be devoted to inhibiting action, less are available for encoding sensory stimuli.

The role of stimulus salience and attentional capture across the neural hierarchy in a stop-signal task.

Inhibitory motor control is a core function of cognitive control. Evidence from diverse experimental approaches has linked this function to a mostly right-lateralized network of cortical and subcortical areas, wherein a signal from the frontal cortex to the basal ganglia is believed to trigger motor-response cancellation. Recently, however, it has been recognized that in the context of typical motor-control paradigms those processes related to actual response inhibition and those related to the attentional processing of the relevant stimuli are highly interrelated and thus difficult to distinguish. Here, we used fMRI and a modified Stop-signal task to specifically examine the role of perceptual and attentional processes triggered by the different stimuli in such tasks, thus seeking to further distinguish other cognitive processes that may precede or otherwise accompany the implementation of response inhibition. In order to establish which brain areas respond to sensory stimulation differences by rare Stop-stimuli, as well as to the associated attentional capture that these may trigger irrespective of their task-relevance, we compared brain activity evoked by Stop-trials to that evoked by Go-trials in task blocks where Stop-stimuli were to be ignored. In addition, region-of-interest analyses comparing the responses to these task-irrelevant Stop-trials, with those to typical relevant Stop-trials, identified separable activity profiles as a function of the task-relevance of the Stop-signal. While occipital areas were mostly blind to the task-relevance of Stop-stimuli, activity in temporo-parietal areas dissociated between task-irrelevant and task-relevant ones. Activity profiles in frontal areas, in turn, were activated mainly by task-relevant Stop-trials, presumably reflecting a combination of triggered top-down attentional influences and inhibitory motor-control processes.

The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands.

Both stimulus and response conflict can disrupt behavior by slowing response times and decreasing accuracy. Although several neural activations have been associated with conflict processing, it is unclear how specific any of these are to the type of stimulus conflict or the amount of response conflict. Here, we recorded electrical brain activity, while manipulating the type of stimulus conflict in the task (spatial [Flanker] versus semantic [Stroop]) and the amount of response conflict (two versus four response choices). Behaviorally, responses were slower to incongruent versus congruent stimuli across all task and response types, along with overall slowing for higher response-mapping complexity. The earliest incongruency-related neural effect was a short-duration frontally-distributed negativity at ~200 ms that was only present in the Flanker spatial-conflict task. At longer latencies, the classic fronto-central incongruency-related negativity 'N(inc)' was observed for all conditions, but was larger and ~100 ms longer in duration with more response options. Further, the onset of the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP) was earlier for the two vs. four response sets, indicating that smaller response sets enabled faster motor-response preparation. The late positive complex (LPC) was present in all conditions except the two-response Stroop task, suggesting this late conflict-related activity is not specifically related to task type or response-mapping complexity. Importantly, across tasks and conditions, the LRP onset at or before the conflict-related N(inc), indicating that motor preparation is a rapid, automatic process that interacts with the conflict-detection processes after it has begun. Together, these data highlight how different conflict-related processes operate in parallel and depend on both the cognitive demands of the task and the number of response options.

Memory-Based Attentional Guidance: A Window to the Relationship between Working Memory and Attention

Attention, the cognitive means by which we prioritize the processing of a subset of information, is necessary for operating efficiently and effectively in the world. Thus, a critical theoretical question is how information is selected. In the visual domain, working memory (WM)—which refers to the short-term maintenance and manipulation of information that is no longer accessible by the senses—has been highlighted as an important determinant of what is selected by visual attention. Furthermore, although WM and attention have traditionally been conceived as separate cognitive constructs, an abundance of behavioral and neural evidence indicates that these two domains are in fact intertwined and overlapping. The aim of this dissertation is to better understand the nature of WM and attention, primarily through the phenomenon of memory-based attentional guidance, whereby the active maintenance of items in visual WM reliably biases the deployment of attention to memory-matching items in the visual environment. The research presented here employs a combination of behavioral, functional imaging, and computational modeling techniques that address: (1) WM guidance effects with respect to the traditional dichotomy of top-down versus bottom-up attentional control; (2) under what circumstances the contents of WM impact visual attention; and (3) the broader hypothesis of a predictive and competitive interaction between WM and attention. Collectively, these empirical findings reveal the importance of WM as a distinct factor in attentional control and support current models of multiple-state WM, which may have broader implications for how we select and maintain information.