» Articles » PMID: 35517989

Neural Evidence for Different Types of Position Coding Strategies in Spatial Working Memory

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2022 May 6
PMID 35517989
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Sustained neural activity during the delay phase of spatial working memory tasks is compelling evidence for the neural correlate of active storage and maintenance of spatial information, however, it does not provide insight into specific mechanisms of spatial coding. This activity may reflect a range of processes, such as maintenance of a stimulus position or a prepared motor response plan. The aim of our study was to examine neural evidence for the use of different coding strategies, depending on the characteristics and demands of a spatial working memory task. Thirty-one (20 women, 23 ± 5 years) and 44 (23 women, 21 ± 2 years) participants performed a spatial working memory task while we measured their brain activity using fMRI in two separate experiments. Participants were asked to remember the position of a briefly presented target stimulus and, after a delay period, to use a joystick to indicate either the position of the remembered target or an indicated non-matching location. The task was designed so that the predictability of the response could be manipulated independently of task difficulty and memory retrieval process. We were particularly interested in contrasting conditions in which participants (i) could use prospective coding of the motor response or (ii) had to rely on retrospective sensory information. Prospective motor coding was associated with activity in somatomotor, premotor, and motor cortices and increased integration of brain activity with and within the somatomotor network. In contrast, retrospective sensory coding was associated with increased activity in parietal regions and increased functional connectivity with and within secondary visual and dorsal attentional networks. The observed differences in activation levels, dynamics of differences over trial duration, and integration of information within and between brain networks provide compelling evidence for the use of complementary spatial working memory strategies optimized to meet task demands.

Citing Articles

Individual differences in spatial working memory strategies differentially reflected in the engagement of control and default brain networks.

Purg Suljic N, Kraljic A, Rahmati M, Cho Y, Slana Ozimic A, Murray J Cereb Cortex. 2024; 34(8).

PMID: 39214852 PMC: 11364466. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhae350.


autohrf-an R package for generating data-informed event models for general linear modeling of task-based fMRI data.

Purg N, Demsar J, Anticevic A, Repovs G Front Neuroimaging. 2023; 1:983324.

PMID: 37555164 PMC: 10406192. DOI: 10.3389/fnimg.2022.983324.

References
1.
Winkler A, Ridgway G, Webster M, Smith S, Nichols T . Permutation inference for the general linear model. Neuroimage. 2014; 92:381-97. PMC: 4010955. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060. View

2.
Haun D, Allen G, Wedell D . Bias in spatial memory: a categorical endorsement. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005; 118(1-2):149-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.011. View

3.
Ball K, Pearson D, Smith D . Oculomotor involvement in spatial working memory is task-specific. Cognition. 2013; 129(2):439-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.006. View

4.
Starc M, Anticevic A, Repovs G . Fine-grained versus categorical: Pupil size differentiates between strategies for spatial working memory performance. Psychophysiology. 2017; 54(5):724-735. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12828. View

5.
Postle B . Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain. Neuroscience. 2005; 139(1):23-38. PMC: 1428794. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.06.005. View