SPRING Cognitive Control Flashcards
miller and cohen 2001
what is cog control
cog control : flexible control to improve effiacy of lives
in uncertainty must adapt appropriate resources to deal with situation
evolved mehanisms to deal with sensory and motor processess towards a common goal
more deamnding task = greater prioritisation of attention to determine correct response
types of cognitive control
planning reasoning processing speed updating shifting/cog flexibility inhibition
describe planning
formulating, evaluationg and selecting a sequence of thoughts and actions to achieve a desired goal
describe reasoning
think in a logical way
what info is necessary to make a logical decision?
processing speed
how quickly can we process environmental info
updating
monitoring info for change and prioritising new over old
shifting/cog flexibility
ability to adapt and shift between situations
think flexibly and respond appropriately
requires shifting of priorities
inhibition
ability to stop ones beh at appropriate time and stop preprogrammed responses
driven by internal goals
measuring cog control
stroop letter updating plus minus go no go WCST
stroop
inhibit word reading and prioritise colour fous
processing speed of automatic (reading) vs controlled (tio down colour)
slower if conflict
letter updating
add nos
subtract no
then alternate
go no go
inhibit response to predetermined stimulus
accuray : false alarms - react to no go, and miss: dont react to go
WCST
sort cards in accordance to one of 3 rules
colour shape or number
update info and shift to new rule (frontal lobe damage perseverate)
miyake et al 2000 exec function related?
tower of hanoi vs WCST vs random no generation
correlation between 3 tasks
clearly seperable in performance but some overlap and more than one EF
WCST - shifting, tower of hanoi - inhibition, random no - inhibit and update
tasks for shifting
pluc minus
no - letter
local global
tasks for updating
keep track
tone monitor
letter memory
tasks for inhibition
antisaccade
stopsignal
stroop
PFC in cog control
overrides prepotent responses
inhibits predeterimed responses
controls processing of incoming sensory stimuli - ensure doesnt interfere with beh relevant internal representations/goals
miller and cohen 2001 integrative theory of PFC
top down excitatory biasing model
PFC inhibit predetermined responses, and ontrol processing of inoming sensory stimuli so doesnt interfere with internal representations
have innate harwired paths for automatic orienting to unexpected stimuli BUT PFC maintains representations that guide control of exec tasks- PFC determines focus and diminishes influence of distracting info based on internal goals
exec function and working memory in the brain
similar regions
WM key component of exec function
braver and cohen 2001 PFC and WM
WM part of exec funcitons: WM use PFC
- BADDELEY AND HITCH WM MODEL - propose wm architechtually segregated
is PFC involved in storing info or in controlling behaviour
- Strong evidence that PFC is an important neural substrate of WM - BUT not cleanly mapped onto the brain at B+H suggest -
cog control, WM and PFC
PFC representa and actively maintains context info
top down bias of local competitve interactions
storage and control intergrated in the PFC
- tasks of cog control NEED WM
miller and cohen model of cog control
cog control stems from the active maintenance of patterns of activity in the PFC that represent goals and means to achieve them
uses hardwired pathways for automatic behaviours - stereotypic and inflexible to novel situations (BOTTOM UP)
PFC reciprocal connections allow role in synthesis of info for complex behaviours - bias signal to sensory in execution, memory and retrieval
PFC cog control in strop task
sensory input feel up to areas for processing word/colout - compete for attention - PFC guide internal goal to respond to colour NOT word - prioritise colour and respond appropriately
Lhermitte 1983 lateral frontal lobe syndrome
left/right unnilat/bilat frontal lesions lead to inappropriate and disorganised beh
exagerated tendency for beh to be determined by environment - utilisation and environmental dependency
utilisation syndrome
frontal lesions supresses parietal inhibition an dincreased activation = beh more dependent on the environment - grab things in immediate environ and USE
environmental dependency syndrome
overreliance on environment to guide social experiences
imitation of non verbal cues
- inferior frontal gyrus
lesions of the orbital surface of the frontal lobe and head of the caudate nucleus
“pulled to stimulus” like infants
milner 1963WCST
worst if prob in DLPFC - led to perseveration and inability to inhibit immediate response/first rule
simmonds, pekar and mostofsky 2008 go no go
metaanalysis of go no go (fMRI)
simple and complex (no go change dependent on context/based on rule)
WM demand increase =
dlPFC and inferior parietal cortex
BOTH: preupplementary motor area (p-SMA) and fusiform gyrus
response select - p-SMA
localise in frontal lobe but varies dependent on task
schultz et al 2007 go no go
no go on hapy faces
more false alarms to happy and missess for sad
happy rewarding social stimuli
herd et al 2006 update on miller and cohen 2001 integreated theory of PFC
doesnt adress nature and origin of PFC representations
assumes stroop existing rep for ink naming
BUT
stress important of ‘category representations’ in guiding attentional control - pre existing representations not specific to task but develop via experience
ie stroop using pre existing colour (lang and perception) then improve to perception reading>lang
TASK REP NOT FROM SCRATCH BUT DEVELOPS FROM PREV BASED ON DEMANDS
miller and cohen 2001 model of og control
PFC (DL/VL/orbital/medial) - intrinsic and extrinsic (mostly) reciprocal connections with sensory, motor and subcortical areas involved in affect, memory and reward
paths carry diff info for the expression and behaviour: strongest/greatest activation = greatest influence on beh
