The role of conjunctive representations in prioritizing and selecting planned actions

  1. Atsushi Kikumoto  Is a corresponding author
  2. Ulrich Mayr
  3. David Badre
  1. Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, United States
  2. RIKEN Center for Brain Science, Japan
  3. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States
  4. Carney Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, United States
8 figures, 2 tables and 1 additional file

Figures

Task design and the procedure of decoding analysis.

(A) Sequence of trial events in the rule-selection task with two independent action plans. Test probabilities of each action are assigned randomly every block. (B) Spatial translation of different …

The effect of priority of actions on behavior.

Average response times, error probability, swapping probability, and cutoff time (i.e. trial-to-trial response deadlines) in the low and high test probability conditions. Note that a swapping error …

Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Trajectories of decoded representations of two actions in the different levels of priority.

Average, single-trial t-values associated with each of the basic features (rule, stimulus, and response) and their conjunction derived from the representational similarity analysis (RSA), separately …

Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Decoded representations of two actions using frequency-specific scalp topography.

The representational similarity analysis scores of individual subjects using EEG signals in specific frequency ranges (1–3 Hz for the delta-band, 4–7 Hz for the theta-band, 8–12 Hz for the …

Figure 4 with 1 supplement
Modulation of action representations during selection using stimulus-aligned EEG.

Average, single-trial t-values associated with the stimulus, conjunction, and response derived from the representational similarity analysis (RSA), separately for high-priority (red) action and …

Figure 4—figure supplement 1
Modulation of action representations during selection using response-aligned EEG.

Average, single-trial t-values associated with the stimulus, conjunction, and response derived from the representational similarity analysis (RSA), separately for high-priority (red) action and …

Interference between tested and untested actions with different levels of priority.

The coefficients of the multilevel regression models predicting the variability in trial-to-trial RTs and errors. The model included representational similarity analysis scores of all action …

Author response image 1
Trial-to-trial variability between high and low priority conjunctions, using above median trials.

The coefficients of the multilevel regression model predicting the variability in trial-to-trial highpriority conjunction by low-priority conjunction.

Author response image 2
The number of retained trials of each S-R mapping condition.

The box plot shows the count of number of trials retained after artifact rejection. The number label of each S-R mapping corresponds to Figure 1C in the main text.

Author response image 3
Decoded representations of two actions using frequency-specific scalptopography.

The RSA scores of individual subjects using EEG signals in specific frequency ranges (1-3 Hz for the δ-band, 4-7 Hz for the theta-band, 8-12 Hz for the α- band, 13-30 for the β-band, 31-35 Hz for …

Tables

Table 1
Trial-by-trial representational similarity analysis scores of high- and low-priority actions in each test probability context during the test phase.
Decoded featuresTested high priorityTested low priority
beta (CI)t-Valuebeta (CI)t-Value
Rule0.071 (.05.09)6.08***0.069 (.04.09)4.76**
Stimulus (high priority)0.034 (.01.05)3.41*0.021 (.01.03)2.9*
Conjunction (high priority)0.021 (.01.04)3.57*0.007 (–.01.02)0.86
Response (high priority)0.034 (.02.05)5.04**0.009 (–.01.03)1.04
Stimulus (low priority)0.011 (.01.02)2.20*0.014 (–.01.03)1.30
Conjunction (low priority)0.003 (–.01.01)0.610.001(–.01.02)0.12
Response (low priority)0.008 (–.01.02)1.610.015(–.01.03)1.82
  1. Note: *, **, ***, and a dot indicate p<0.05, p<0.01, p<.001.

Table 2
Cluster-level statistics for the main effects of the interaction model between test type and priority regressed on the representational similarity analysis (RSA) scores.
RSA scoresEffectTime (ms)Cluster T-valueCluster p-value
StimulusPriority1566–159820.11<0.01
Priority1846–186612.45<0.01
ConjunctionTest type1898–205098.36<0.01
ResponsePriority1738–179438.70<0.01
Test type1858–189422.94<0.01
Test type2014–211067.02<0.01
  1. Note: The clusters were identified from the model that included the effect of priority and test type and their interaction using a cluster-forming threshold, p<0.05. The interaction effect is shown in Figure 4.

Additional files

Download links