Literature DB >> 17014377

Task switching and novelty processing activate a common neural network for cognitive control.

Francisco Barcelo1, Carles Escera, Maria J Corral, Jose A Periáñez.   

Abstract

The abrupt onset of a novel event captures attention away from, and disrupts, ongoing task performance. Less obvious is that intentional task switching compares with novelty-induced behavioral distraction. Here we explore the hypothesis that intentional task switching and attentional capture by a novel distracter both activate a common neural network involved in processing contextual novelty [Barcelo, F., Periáñez, J. A., & Knight, R. T. Think differently: A brain orienting response to task novelty. NeuroReport, 13, 1887-1892, 2002.]. Event-related potentials were recorded in two task-cueing paradigms while 16 subjects sorted cards following either two (color or shape; two-task condition) or three (color, shape, or number; three-task condition) rules of action. Each card was preceded by a familiar tone cueing the subject either to switch or to repeat the previous rule. Novel sound distracters were interspersed in one of two blocks of trials in each condition. Both novel sounds and task-switch cues impaired responses to the following visual target. Novel sounds elicited novelty P3 potentials with their usual peak latency and frontal-central scalp distribution. Familiar tonal switch cues in the three- and two-task conditions elicited brain potentials with a similar latency and morphology as the novelty P3, but with relatively smaller amplitudes over frontal scalp regions. Covariance and principal component analyses revealed a sustained frontal negative potential that was distorting concurrent novelty P3 activity to the tonal switch cues. When this frontal negativity was statistically removed, P3 potentials to novel sounds and task-switch cues showed similar scalp topographies. The degree of activation in the novelty P3 network seemed to be a function of the information (entropy) conveyed by the eliciting stimulus for response selection, over and above its relative novelty, probability of occurrence, task relevance, or feedback value. We conclude that novelty P3 reflects transient activation in a neural network involved in updating task set information for goal-directed action selection and might thus constitute one key element in a central bottleneck for attentional control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17014377     DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1734

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  55 in total

1.  On the automaticity of relational stimulus processing.

Authors:  Niclas Heider; Adriaan Spruyt; Jan De Houwer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-02-02

2.  ERPs predict symptomatic distress and recovery in sub-acute mild traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  James F Cavanagh; J Kevin Wilson; Rebecca E Rieger; Darbi Gill; James M Broadway; Jacqueline Hope Story Remer; Violet Fratzke; Andrew R Mayer; Davin K Quinn
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  The timing of cognitive control in partially incongruent categorization.

Authors:  Antao Chen; Peng Xu; Quanhong Wang; Yuejia Luo; Jiajin Yuan; Dezhong Yao; Hong Li
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs.

Authors:  Kerstin Jost; Ulrich Mayr; Frank Rösler
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.282

5.  Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Authors:  János Horváth
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-08-04

6.  Unexpected events induce motor slowing via a brain mechanism for action-stopping with global suppressive effects.

Authors:  Jan R Wessel; Adam R Aron
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Preserved executive function in high-performing elderly is driven by large-scale recruitment of prefrontal cortical mechanisms.

Authors:  Pierfilippo De Sanctis; Manuel Gomez-Ramirez; Pejman Sehatpour; Glenn R Wylie; John J Foxe
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect.

Authors:  Bibiana Klempova; Roman Liepelt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-04-02

9.  Common mechanisms in error monitoring and action effect monitoring.

Authors:  Robert Steinhauser; Robert Wirth; Wilfried Kunde; Markus Janczyk; Marco Steinhauser
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Immediate versus delayed control demands elicit distinct mechanisms for instantiating proactive control.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Janowich; James F Cavanagh
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.282

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.