Cascade of neural processing orchestrates cognitive control in human frontal cortex

  1. Hanlin Tang
  2. Hsiang-Yu Yu
  3. Chien-Chen Chou
  4. Nathan E Crone
  5. Joseph R Madsen
  6. William S Anderson
  7. Gabriel Kreiman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
  3. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, United States
  4. Harvard Medical School, United States
  5. Johns Hopkins Medical School, United States

Abstract

Rapid and flexible interpretation of conflicting sensory inputs in the context of current goals is a critical component of cognitive control that is orchestrated by frontal cortex. The relative roles of distinct subregions within frontal cortex are poorly understood. To examine the dynamics underlying cognitive control across frontal regions, we took advantage of the spatiotemporal resolution of intracranial recordings in epilepsy patients while subjects resolved color-word conflict. We observed differential activity preceding the behavioral responses to conflict trials throughout frontal cortex; this activity was correlated with behavioral reaction times. These signals emerged first in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) before dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), followed by medial frontal cortex (mFC) and then by orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). These results disassociate the frontal subregions based on their dynamics, and suggest a temporal hierarchy for cognitive control in human cortex.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hanlin Tang

    Program in Biophysics, Harvard University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Hsiang-Yu Yu

    Department of Neurology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chien-Chen Chou

    Department of Neurology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nathan E Crone

    Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Joseph R Madsen

    Department of Neurosurgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. William S Anderson

    Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Medical School, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gabriel Kreiman

    Program in Biophysics, Harvard University, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    gkreiman@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Hiram Brownell, Boston College, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent, and consent to publish, was obtained for each participant. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at each institution (Methods).

Version history

  1. Received: October 15, 2015
  2. Accepted: February 13, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 18, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 17, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Tang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,165
    views
  • 535
    downloads
  • 29
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Hanlin Tang
  2. Hsiang-Yu Yu
  3. Chien-Chen Chou
  4. Nathan E Crone
  5. Joseph R Madsen
  6. William S Anderson
  7. Gabriel Kreiman
(2016)
Cascade of neural processing orchestrates cognitive control in human frontal cortex
eLife 5:e12352.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12352

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12352

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays
    Research Article

    Probing memory of a complex visual image within a few hundred milliseconds after its disappearance reveals significantly greater fidelity of recall than if the probe is delayed by as little as a second. Classically interpreted, the former taps into a detailed but rapidly decaying visual sensory or ‘iconic’ memory (IM), while the latter relies on capacity-limited but comparatively stable visual working memory (VWM). While iconic decay and VWM capacity have been extensively studied independently, currently no single framework quantitatively accounts for the dynamics of memory fidelity over these time scales. Here, we extend a stationary neural population model of VWM with a temporal dimension, incorporating rapid sensory-driven accumulation of activity encoding each visual feature in memory, and a slower accumulation of internal error that causes memorized features to randomly drift over time. Instead of facilitating read-out from an independent sensory store, an early cue benefits recall by lifting the effective limit on VWM signal strength imposed when multiple items compete for representation, allowing memory for the cued item to be supplemented with information from the decaying sensory trace. Empirical measurements of human recall dynamics validate these predictions while excluding alternative model architectures. A key conclusion is that differences in capacity classically thought to distinguish IM and VWM are in fact contingent upon a single resource-limited WM store.

    1. Neuroscience
    Emilio Salinas, Bashirul I Sheikh
    Insight

    Our ability to recall details from a remembered image depends on a single mechanism that is engaged from the very moment the image disappears from view.