Perception – Gain Control



Working Memory – Interference Control

|Task Name |Description |Cognitive Construct Validity |Neural Construct Validity |Reliability |Psychometric Characteristics |Animal Model |Stage of Research |

|Inhibition of |The Inhibition of Currently Irrelevant Memories task |Unknown construct validity. One |Performance on this task has been|To my knowledge, |The strength of the memory trace may |NONE |There is evidence that this |

|Currently Irrelevant |(ICIM) measures the ability to suppress memory traces |distinguishing feature of this task, when |shown to be mediated primarily by|reliability has not been |be manipulated and must be adapted for| |specific task elicits deficits|

|Memories Task |that are not relevant to ongoing reality. “This task |compared to other executive tasks, is that |the posterior medial |assessed. However, our |different populations. for example, | |in schizophrenia. |

| |involves the presentation of a series of animal |it indexes both the ability to |orbitofrontal cortex. |research has consistently |in patients with schizophrenia | | |

| |pictures (selected from the Berkeley Digital Library |(intentionally) inhibit irrelevant | |shown that performance on |(Badcock et al., 2005; Waters et al., | |We need to assess psychometric|

| |Project collection) for repeated identification. Four |memories, and to make a judgment regarding | |this task was impaired in |2003) pictures must be repeated | |characteristics such as |

| |runs were shown of the same basic set of 52 pictures. |whether the retrieved memories are |(Schnider & Ptak, 1999) |hallucinating patients with|frequently in the first run to | |test-retest reliability, |

| |Four pictures were repeated eight times within each |currently relevant or irrelevant. The |(Schnider et al., 2000) |schizophrenia in two |establish a strong memory trace. In | |practice effects, and |

| |run, as described by Schnider and Ptak. These target |strength of the memory trace may also be |(Treyer, Buck, & Schnider, 2003) |separate studies, and in |healthy individuals (e.g. Paulik, | |ceiling/floor effects for this|

| |items were different for the four runs. The pictures |experimentally manipulated. |(Schnider, Valenza, Morand, & |healthy people with a high |Badcock et al; Schnider literature), | |task. |

| |were presented for 2000 ms each with an interstimulus | |Michel, 2002) |predisposition to |few presentations are needed to make | | |

| |interval of 1000 ms. Immediately after the first run, | | |hallucinations. |the task more difficult. Only two | |We need to study whether or |

| |the second run was presented. A third run was made 5 | | | |runs (instead of 4, as used in(Badcock| |not performance on this task |

| |min after the second run, and the fourth run was made | | | |et al., 2005; Waters et al., 2003)) | |changes in response to |

| |after a 30-min delay. For the first run, participants | | | |are really necessary, as the strongest| |psychological or |

| |were told that pictures of animals would be presented | | | |effect is obtained in run 2. | |pharmacological intervention |

| |and that some would be shown more than once. The task | | | |Picture selection is important. We | |. |

| |was to identify which pictures were repeated. For each | | | |used picture of animals (which | | |

| |subsequent run, participants were instructed to forget | | | |patients found very pleasant), but | | |

| |that they had already seen the pictures and to indicate| | | |Paulik used Snodgrass drawn pictures | | |

| |picture reoccurrences only within that run. | | | |successfully. In a pilot study, we | | |

| |Performance on the first run depended on new learning, | | | |used geometric shapes, but healthy | | |

| |whereas subsequent runs required active inhibition of | | | |controls (but not patients) tended to | | |

| |memory of pictures seen in the previous runs (Schnider | | | |verbalize the items (e.g. 'it looks | | |

| |et al., 2000). Consequently, the number of false alarms| | | |like a gate'). | | |

| |(FA) in the last three runs, but not the first, was | | | | | | |

| |used to index an inability to inhibit irrelevant | | | | | | |

| |memories.” | | | | | | |

| |Page 227 from Water et al., 2003. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |(Schnider & Ptak, 1999) | | | | | | |

| |(Schnider, Treyer, & Buck, 2000) | | | | | | |

| |(Waters, Badcock, Maybery, & Michie, 2003) | | | | | | |

| |(Badcock, Waters, Maybery, & Michie, 2005) | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |MANUSCRIPTS ON THE WEBSITE: | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Schnider, A., & Ptak, R. (1999). Spontaneous | | | | | | |

| |confabulators fail to suppress currently irrelevant | | | | | | |

| |memory traces. Nat Neurosci, 2(7), 677-681. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Waters, F. A., Badcock, J. C., Maybery, M. T., & | | | | | | |

| |Michie, P. T. (2003). Inhibition in schizophrenia: | | | | | | |

| |association with auditory hallucinations. Schizophr | | | | | | |

| |Res, 62(3), 275-280. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Recent Probes Task |Recent probes task-- can be used in the context of item|The task has been shown to share |Older adults have a deficit in |Reliabilty has not been |There are both practice and fatigue |Not Known |This specific task needs to be|

| |recognition or N-back. requires that items from prior |commonalities, both neuroanatomically and |performance on the recent probes |formally assessed, although|effects-- interference resolution | |studied in individuals with |

| |trials repeat as probes on subsequent trials. “In this|cognitively, with other tasks that involve |task, and have underactivation of|we have the data to do so. |improves across repeated sessions | |schizophrenia. |

| |task, 144 trials are divided into three 48-trial blocks|selection/inhibition of non-relevant |left IFG-- a region implicated in| |(with recovery in between) and fatigue| | |

| |with a 1 min rest period between blocks. Each trial |stimulus attributes (Persson et al., 2007).|mediating the interference | |(increased interference can occur | |Data already exists on |

| |begins with four lowercase letters and a central |We have demonstrated both negative (Persson|resolution component of this | |within sessions. | |psychometric characteristics |

| |fixation cross presented in a square configuration for |et al., 2007) and positive transfer between|task. As mentioned previously, | | | |of this task, such as |

| |1500 ms. A 1500 ms probe follows a 3000 ms delay and |the recent probes task, verb generation, |we have documented anatomical | |(Persson et al., 2007) | |test-retest reliability, |

| |consists of a single uppercase letter. On 50 percent of|and episodic retrieval tasks, with high |overlap within subjects between | | | |practice effects, |

| |the trials, the probe is a member of the current target|interference (Persson and Reuter-Lorenz, |left ifg activation during the | | | |ceiling/floor effects. |

| |set, and on 50 percent of the trials it is not. |under review). |recent probes task, and high | | | | |

| |Subjects respond “yes” for a match with their right | |selection demand in the verb | | | |There is evidence that |

| |index, or “no” for a mismatch, with their right middle | |generate task. Also, individuals| | | |performance on this task can |

| |finger. The inter-trial interval is 1500 ms and there | |with lesions to left IFG show | | | |improve in response to |

| |are no more than two consecutive positive or negative | |impaired performance on this task| | | |psychological or |

| |trials. In the low interference condition, negative | |(Thompson-Schill et al., 2002). | | | |pharmacological interventions.|

| |probes are neither members of the current target set | | | | | | |

| |nor in the target set of the previous two trials. In | |(Thompson-Schill et al., 2002) | | | | |

| |the high interference condition, one third of the | |(D'Esposito, Postle, Jonides, & | | | | |

| |negative probes are (i) neither in the current target | |Smith, 1999) | | | | |

| |set nor in the target set of the previous two trials | |(Jonides et al., 1998) | | | | |

| |low interference), | |(Jonides et al., 2000) | | | | |

| |(ii) a letter in the previous target set, but not in | |(Persson et al., 2007) | | | | |

| |the set before that (familiar), (iii) | | | | | | |

| |a letter in the previous two trials (highly familiar). | | | | | | |

| |Positive probes are nonoverlapping with targets on the | | | | | | |

| |previous two trials.T rials with both familiar and | | | | | | |

| |highly familiar probes are considered high interference| | | | | | |

| |trials.” From page 1573 of Persson et al., 2007. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |(Jonides, Smith, Marshuetz, Koeppe, & Reuter-Lorenz, | | | | | | |

| |1998) | | | | | | |

| |(Jonides et al., 2000) | | | | | | |

| |(Persson, Welsh, Jonides, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2007) | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |MANUSCRIPTS ON THE WEBSITE: | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Jonides, J., Smith, E., Marshuetz, C., Koeppe, R., & | | | | | | |

| |Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Inhibition in verbal | | | | | | |

| |working memory revealed by brain activation. | | | | | | |

| |Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, | | | | | | |

| |95, 8410-8413. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Persson, J., Welsh, K. M., Jonides, J., & | | | | | | |

| |Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2007). Cognitive fatigue of | | | | | | |

| |executive processes: interaction between interference | | | | | | |

| |resolution tasks. Neuropsychologia, 45(7), 1571-1579. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|The Ignore-Suppress |The Ignore-Suppress task has recently been developed by|Different behavioral variations |Responses to the two kinds of |Unknown |Unknown |Unknown |This specific task needs to be|

|Task |Nee and Jonides (in press).In both the Ignore and |differentially affect performance in the |negative probes lead to different| | | |studied in individuals with |

| |Suppress tasks, on each trial of a working memory |Ignore and Suppress tasks. |activations in an fMRI study. | | | |schizophrenia. |

| |paradigm subjects are presented a small set of words, | | | | | | |

| |half being in one color, half being in another. At some|See a paper by Nee, Jonides, and Berman |(Jonides & Nee, 2006) | | | |We need to assess psychometric|

| |point in the trial subjects are cued to remember only |that shows the relationship of this task | | | | |characteristics such as |

| |those words in a particular color, and at the end of |and interference in the Recent-probes task |See a paper by Nee, Jonides, and | | | |test-retest reliability, |

| |the trial to decide whether each of a series of test |(Nee, Jonides, & Berman, 2007), both |Berman that shows the | | | |practice effects, and |

| |probes is in the to-be-remembered subset or not. The |behaviorally and for neural mechanisms. |relationship of this task and | | | |ceiling/floor effects for this|

| |critical variation is when the cue occurs: either | |interference in the Recent-probes| | | |task. |

| |before the words are presented (Ignore task), or after |(Nee et al., 2007) |task (Nee, Jonides, & Berman, | | | | |

| |the words are presented (Suppress task).The Ignore task| |2007), both behaviorally and for | | | |We need to study whether or |

| |taps inhibition at the level of perception, which is | |neural mechanisms. | | | |not performance on this task |

| |measured by the difference in reaction time (RT) to | | | | | |changes in response to |

| |correctly reject a probe that was in the ignored subset| |(Nee et al., 2007) | | | |psychological or |

| |versus a probe that did not occur on that trial. The | |mechanisms | | | |pharmacological intervention. |

| |Suppress task reflects inhibition in working memory, | | | | | | |

| |which is measured by the difference in RTs to correctly| | | | | | |

| |reject a probe that was in the suppressed subset versus| | | | | | |

| |a probe that did not occur on that trial. The two kinds| | | | | | |

| |of inhibition can be dissociated at both the behavioral| | | | | | |

| |and neural levels. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |(Nee & Jonides, in press) | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |MANUSCRIPTS ON THE WEBSITE: | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Nee, D. E., Jonides, J., & Berman, M. G. (2007). Neural| | | | | | |

| |mechanisms of proactive interference-resolution. | | | | | | |

| |Neuroimage, 38(4), 740-751. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Brain mechanisms of | | | | | | |

| |proactive interference in working memory. Neuroscience,| | | | | | |

| |139(1), 181-193. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

REFERENCES:

Badcock, J. C., Waters, F. A., Maybery, M. T., & Michie, P. T. (2005). Auditory hallucinations: failure to inhibit irrelevant memories. Cognit Neuropsychiatry, 10(2), 125-136.

D'Esposito, M., Postle, B. R., Jonides, J., & Smith, E. E. (1999). The neural substrate and temporal dynamics of interference effects in working memory as revealed by event-related functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96, 7514-7519.

Jonides, J., Marshuetz, C., Smith, E. E., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Koeppe, R. A., & Hartley, A. (2000). Age differences in behavior and PET activation reveal differences in interference resolution in verbal working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 188-196.

Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Brain mechanisms of proactive interference in working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1), 181-193.

Jonides, J., Smith, E., Marshuetz, C., Koeppe, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Inhibition in verbal working memory revealed by brain activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 8410-8413.

Nee, D. E., & Jonides, J. (in press). Dissociable interference control processes in perception and memory. Psychological Science.

Nee, D. E., Jonides, J., & Berman, M. G. (2007). Neural mechanisms of proactive interference-resolution. Neuroimage, 38(4), 740-751.

Oberauer, K., Demmrich, A., Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2001). Dissociating retention and access in working memory: an age-comparative study of mental arithmetic. Mem Cognit, 29(1), 18-33.

Persson, J., Welsh, K. M., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2007). Cognitive fatigue of executive processes: interaction between interference resolution tasks. Neuropsychologia, 45(7), 1571-1579.

Schnider, A., & Ptak, R. (1999). Spontaneous confabulators fail to suppress currently irrelevant memory traces. Nat Neurosci, 2(7), 677-681.

Schnider, A., Treyer, V., & Buck, A. (2000). Selection of currently relevant memories by the human posterior medial orbitofrontal cortex. J Neurosci, 20(15), 5880-5884.

Schnider, A., Valenza, N., Morand, S., & Michel, C. M. (2002). Early cortical distinction between memories that pertain to ongoing reality and memories that don't. Cereb Cortex, 12(1), 54-61.

Thompson-Schill, S. L., Jonides, J., Marshuetz, C., Smith, E. E., D'Esposito, M., Kan, I. P., et al. (2002). Effects of frontal lobe damage on interference effects in working memory. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, 2(2), 109-120.

Treyer, V., Buck, A., & Schnider, A. (2003). Subcortical loop activation during selection of currently relevant memories. J Cogn Neurosci, 15(4), 610-618.

Waters, F. A., Badcock, J. C., Maybery, M. T., & Michie, P. T. (2003). Inhibition in schizophrenia: association with auditory hallucinations. Schizophr Res, 62(3), 275-280.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download