Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29229706›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2018

Causal Evidence for Learning-Dependent Frontal Lobe Contributions to Cognitive Control.

Paul S Muhle-Karbe, Jiefeng Jiang, Tobias Egner

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Learning to Overexert Cognitive Control in a Stroop Task.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  18. Performance feedback promotes proactive but not reactive adaptation of conflict-control.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2020
    Article
  19. Temporal Dynamics of Memory-guided Cognitive Control and Generalization of Control via Overlapping Associative Memories.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Paul S Muhle-KarbeCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, paul.muhlekarbe@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8749-2815
Jiefeng JiangCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708.ORCID 0000-0002-4264-6382
Tobias EgnerCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708.ORCID 0000-0001-7956-3241
Duke University · USUniversity College Ghent · BE

Funding

Characterizing neural mechanisms of cognitive controlR01MH087610 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI EGNER, TOBIAS · 2010 to 2018
$2.5M
Neurocognitive mechanisms of age-related declines in context-driven adjustments of cognitive controlF32AG056080 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI JIANG, JIEFENG · 2017 to 2019
$170k
NIA NIH HHS F32 AG056080NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) plays a central role in the prioritization of sensory input based on task relevance. Such top-down control of perception is of fundamental importance in goal-directed behavior, but can also be costly when deployed excessively, necessitating a mechanism that regulates control engagement to align it with changing environmental demands. We have recently introduced the "flexible control model" (FCM), which explains this regulation as resulting from a self-adjusting reinforcement-learning mechanism that infers latent statistical structure in dynamic task environments to predict forthcoming states. From this perspective, LPFC-based control is engaged as a function of anticipated cognitive demand, a notion for which we previously obtained correlative neuroimaging evidence. Here, we put this hypothesis to a rigorous, causal test by combining the FCM with a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) intervention that transiently perturbed the LPFC. Human participants (male and female) completed a nonstationary version of the Stroop task with dynamically changing probabilities of conflict between task-relevant and task-irrelevant stimulus features. TMS was given on each trial before stimulus onset either over the LPFC or over a control site. In the control condition, we observed adaptive performance fluctuations consistent with demand predictions that were inferred from recent and remote trial history and effectively captured by our model. Critically, TMS over the LPFC eliminated these fluctuations while leaving basic cognitive and motor functions intact. These results provide causal evidence for a learning-based account of cognitive control and delineate the nature of the signals that regulate top-down biases over stimulus processing.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttentionBrain MappingCognitionFemaleHumansLearningMaleMiddle AgedPrefrontal CortexTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung Adultcognitive controlcomputational modelingprefrontal cortexreinforcement learningtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID29229706
PMCPMC5783969
OpenAlexW2774948331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.