Stimulus representation in human frontal cortex supports flexible control in working memory

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Shao et al. investigate the contribution of different cortical areas to working memory maintenance and control processes, an important topic involving different ideas about how the human brain represents and uses information when it is no longer available to sensory systems. In two fMRI experiments, they demonstrate that the human frontal cortex (area sPCS) represents stimulus (orientation) information both during typical maintenance, but even more so when a categorical response demand is present. That is, when participants have to apply an added level of decision control to the WM stimulus, sPCS areas encode stimulus information more than conditions without this added demand. These effects are then expanded upon using multi-area neural network models, recapitulating the empirical gradient of memory vs control effects from visual to parietal and frontal cortices. In general, the experiments and analyses provide solid support for the authors' conclusions, and control experiments and analyses are provided to help interpret and isolate the frontal cortex effect of interest. However, I suggest some alternative explanations and important additional analyses that would help ensure an even stronger level of support for these results and interpretations.

Strengths:

- The authors use an interesting and clever task design across two fMRI experiments that is able to parse out contributions of WM maintenance alone along with categorical, rule-based decisions. Importantly, the second experiment only uses one fixed rule, providing both an internal replication of Experiment 1's effects and extending them to a different situation when rule-switching effects are not involved across mini-blocks.

- The reported analyses using both inverted encoding models (IEM) and decoders (SVM) demonstrate the stimulus reconstruction effects across different methods, which may be sensitive to different aspects of the relationship between patterns of brain activity and the experimental stimuli.

- Linking the multivariate activity patterns to memory behavior is critical in thinking about the potential differential roles of cortical areas in sub-serving successful working memory. Figure 3 nicely shows a similar interaction to that of Figure 2 in the role of sPCS in the categorization vs. maintenance tasks.

- The cross-decoding analysis in Figure 4 is a clever and interesting way to parse out how stimulus and rule/category information may be intertwined, which would have been one of the foremost potential questions or analyses requested by careful readers. However, I think more additional text in the Methods and Results to lay out the exact logic of this abstract category metric will help readers better interpret the potential importance of this analysis and result.

Weaknesses:

- Selection and presentation of regions of interest: I appreciate the authors' care in separating the sPCS region as "frontal cortex", which is not necessarily part of the prefrontal cortex, on which many ideas of working memory maintenance activity are based. However, to help myself and readers interpret these findings, at a minimum the boundaries of each ROI should be provided as part of the main text or extended data figures. Relatedly, the authors use a probabilistic visual atlas to define ROIs in the visual, parietal, and frontal cortices. But other regions of both lateral frontal and parietal cortices show retinotopic responses (Mackey and Curtis, eLife, 2017: https://elifesciences.org/articles/22974) and are perhaps worth considering. Do the inferior PCS regions or inferior frontal sulcus show a similar pattern of effects across tasks? And what about the middle frontal gyrus areas of the prefrontal cortex, which are most analogous to the findings in NHP studies that the authors mention in their discussion, but do not show retinotopic responses? Reporting the effects (or lack thereof) in other areas of the frontal cortex will be critical for readers to interpret the role of the frontal cortex in guiding WM behavior and supporting the strongly worded conclusions of broad frontal cortex functioning in the paper. For example, to what extent can sPCS results be explained by visual retinotopic responses? (Mackey and Curtis, eLife, 2017: https://elifesciences.org/articles/22974).

- When looking at the time course of effects in Figure 2, for example, the sPCS maintenance vs categorization effects occur very late into the WM delay period. More information is needed to help separate this potential effect from that of the response period and potential premotor/motor-related influences. For example, are the timecourses shifted to account for hemodynamic lag, and if so, by how much? Do the sPCS effects blend into the response period? This is critical, too, for a task that does not use a jittered delay period, and potential response timing and planning can be conducted by participants near the end of the WM delay. For example, the authors say that " significant stimulus representation in EVC even when memoranda had been transformed into a motor format (24)". But, I *think* this paper shows the exact opposite interpretation - EVC stimulus information is only detectable when a motor response *cannot* be planned (https://elifesciences.org/articles/75688). Regardless, parsing out the timing and relationship to response planning is important, and an ROI for M1 or premotor cortex could also help as a control comparison point, as in reference (24).

- Interpreting effect sizes of IEM and decoding analysis in different ROIs. Here, the authors are interested in the interaction effects across maintenance and categorization tasks (bar plots in Figure 2), but the effect sizes in even the categorization task (y-axes) are always larger in EVC and IPS than in the sPCS region... To what extent do the authors think this representational fidelity result can or cannot be compared across regions? For example, a reader may wonder how much the sPCS representation matters for the task, perhaps, if memory access is always there in EVC and IPS? Or perhaps late sPCS representations are borrowing/accessing these earlier representations? Giving the reader some more intuition for the effect sizes of representational fidelity will be important. Even in Figure 3 for the behavior, all effects are also seen in IPS as well. More detail or context at minimum is needed about the representational fidelity metric, which is cited in ref (35) but not given in detail. These considerations are important given the claims of the frontal cortex serving such an important for flexible control, here.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors provide evidence that helps resolve long-standing questions about the differential involvement of the frontal and posterior cortex in working memory. They show that whereas the early visual cortex shows stronger decoding of memory content in a memorization task vs a more complex categorization task, the frontal cortex shows stronger decoding during categorization tasks than memorization tasks. They find that task-optimized RNNs trained to reproduce the memorized orientations show some similarities in neural decoding to people. Together, this paper presents interesting evidence for differential responsibilities of brain areas in working memory.

Strengths:

This paper was strong overall. It had a well-designed task, best-practice decoding methods, and careful control analyses. The neural network modelling adds additional insight into the potential computational roles of different regions.

Weaknesses:

While the RNN model matches some of the properties of the task and decoding, its ability to reproduce the detailed findings of the paper was limited. Overall, the RRN model was not as well-motivated as the fMRI analyses.

Author response:

(1) Reviewer 1 suggested that we repeat the analyses in additional ROIs in the prefrontal cortex (PFC). We appreciate this suggestion and believe it will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the current findings. These results will be included in the revision.

(2) Reviewer 1 suggested that we also examine results in motor-related ROIs to rule out influences from response planning. We would like to note that our experimental design makes it unlikely that response planning would have influenced our results, as participants were unable to plan their motor responses in advance due to randomized response mapping on a trial-by-trial basis. Nevertheless, we agree with the reviewer that showing results from motor-related ROIs is important, and will include these results in the revision.

(3) Reviewer 1 raised a question about the effect size of the results across different ROIs. In our manuscript, we tried to avoid direct comparisons of representational strength across ROIs, by focusing on the differences in representational strength between conditions within the same ROI. Nevertheless, we agree that clarifying this issue is important, which we will address in the revision.

(4) Reviewer 2 raised a concern about the similarity between the RNN and fMRI results. We acknowledge that the complexity of our results makes it challenging to replicate all fMRI findings within a single RNN (e.g., simulating three brain regions in a single network with distinct result patterns). Nonetheless, the current RNNs effectively captured our key fMRI findings, including increased stimulus representation in frontal cortex as well as the tradeoff in category representation with varying levels of flexible control. Reviewer 2 also made several suggestions in tweaking the RNN structure and in choosing alternative analysis methods. We are happy to carry out these points as we think they could potentially increase the alignment between the two modalities.