Neuroscience Cellular and molecular neuroscience Neuroanatomy Systems neuroscience.
Computational models of cognitive control (I) Matthew Botvinick Princeton Neuroscience Institute and...
-
Upload
bryce-brown -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Computational models of cognitive control (I) Matthew Botvinick Princeton Neuroscience Institute and...
Computational models of cognitive control (I)
Matthew BotvinickPrinceton Neuroscience Institute andDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University
Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968
Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968
Structural elements
Short-term store
Sensory register
Long-term store
Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968
Structural elements
Short-term store
Sensory register
Long-term store
Control elements
Search / RetrievalTransfer to/from STS
Which register?Forward into sts?
SearchRehearsal
Baddeley, 1986/2007
Baddeley, 1986/2007
“Slave systems”
Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977
Norman & Shallice, 1986
Contention scheduling system
Norman & Shallice, 1986
Supervisory attentional system (SAS)
Contention scheduling system
GREEN
< < < > < < <
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
AR
ZN
KZ
Q
AR
ZN
KZ
Q
AR
ZN
KZ
Q
AR
ZN
KZ
Q
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
-- Controlled (task-guided) attention: “attention for action” (Stroop)
-- Ignoring or inhibiting task-irrelevant stims/responses (Go/No-Go)
-- Manipulating information in working memory (N-Back)
-- Switching between tasks (Wisconsin Card Sort)
-- Planning / scheduling (Tower of London)
-- Navigating through extended, hierarchically structured tasks
GETTING WITH (AND STAYING WITH) THE PROGRAM
“Executive/Cognitive Control”
GETTING WITH (AND STAYING WITH) THE PROGRAM
Encoding / Formulation Maintenance Projection Updating
Task Context
GREEN
Cohen, McClelland & Dunbar, 1990
< < < > < < <
Cohen, Servan-Schreiber & McClelland, AJP, 1992.
Cohen, Servan-Schreiber & McClelland, AJP, 1992.
White & Wise, Exp Br Res, 1999
(See also: Assad, Rainer & Miller, 2000; Bunge, 2004; Hoshi, Shima & Tanji, 1998; Johnston & Everling, 2006; Wallis, Anderson & Miller, 2001; White, 1999…)
From Curtis & D’Esposito, TICS, 2003, after Funahashi et al., J. Neurophysiol,1989.
Questions…
-- What about manipulation in WM, etc? -- dynamics (switching, sequences)-- what controls control? (Homunculus)
Intermission
“A controlled process is a temporary sequenceof nodes activated under control of, andthrough attention by, the subject. Becauseactive attention by the subject is required,only one such sequence at a time may becontrolled without interference.”
Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977
Ridderinkhof et al., Science, 2004 (Based on Picard & Strick, Curr. Op. Biol., 2001)
Response override
Response override Underdetermined responding
Response override Underdetermined responding
Error commission
Response override Underdetermined responding
Error commission
Conflict
GREEN
GREEN
< < < > < < <
> > > > > > >
Botvinick, et al. (1999) Nature.
< < < > < < <
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Thompson-Schill et al., PNAS, 1997
High constraint: APPLE
Low constraint: BALL
Carter, Braver, Barch, Botvinick, Noll & Cohen, Science, 1998
Barch, et al. Cerebral Cortex, 2001 / Botvinick, Carter & Cohen, TICS, 2004
Ridderinkhoff et al., Science, 2004
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Carter, Braver, Barch, Botvinick, Noll & Cohen, Science, 1998
Gratton et al., JEPG, 1992
Low controlHigh conflict
High controlLow conflict
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
scan 1 scan 2 scan 3 scan 4 scan 5
Scan within trial
MR
sig
na
l c
ha
ng
e (
%)
CcI
iI
Botvinick, et al. (1999) Nature.
Low controlHigh conflict
Tzelgov, et al. (1992) Memory & Cognition.
High controlLow conflict
Low controlHigh conflict
Carter, MacDonald, Botvinick et al. (2000) PNAS.
Low controlHigh conflict
Barch, Braver, Sabb & Noll, JCN, 2000
Underdeterminedresponding
ResponseOverride
Yeung, Botvinick & Cohen, Psychological Review, 2004
Stuphorn, Taylor & Schall, Nature, 2000
Ito et al., Science, 2000ACC
SEF
Nakamura, Roesch & Olson, J. Neurophys. 2005
Curtis et al., Cereb. Ctx., 2005
Davis et al., J. Neurosci. 2005
Neutral Incongruent
44%
WHY?
Control
Conflict
Gratton et al., JEPG, 1992
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Tzelgov, et al. (1992) Memory & Cognition.
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Botvinick, et al. (2001) Psychological Review.
Mayr, Awh & Laurey, Nature Neuroscience, 2003
Mayr, Awh & Laurey, Nature Neuroscience, 2003
Ullsperger & Botvinick, PB&R, 2005 Kerns, et al. (2004) Science.
See also:Freitas, Bahar, Yang, and Banai, Psychological Science, 2007 Notebaert, Gevers, Verbruggen, & Liefooghe, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2006
Freitas, Bahar, Yang, and Banai, Psychological Science, 2007
Kerns, et al. (2004) Science.
DiPellegrino, Ciaramelli & Ladavas, J. Cog. Neuro., 2007
Monitoring of action outcomes -- especially outcomes considered aversive or signaling reduction in reward
Gehring & Willoughby, Science, 2002Luu et al., Psychol. Sci., 2004 Niewenhuis et al., Cerebral Cortex, 2004Bush et al., PNAS, 2002Holroyd & Coles, Psychol. Rev., 2002
Use of outcome information to guide action selection
Matsumoto, et al. Science, 2003Bush, et al., PNAS, 2002Holroyd & Coles, Psychol. Rev. 2002Hadland, et al., J. Neurophysiol., 2003Kennerley, et al., Nature Neurosci., 2006
Action selection based on cost-benefit analysis
Rushworth, et al., TICS, 2004
Cost-benefit analysis might take effort into account
Walton, et al., J. Neurosci., 2003
Johansen & Fields, Nature Neuroscience, 2004
Glu antagonist Glu agonist(kynurenic acid) (homocysteic acid)
Jackson, Frost & Moghaddam, J. Neurochem., 2001
Toward an integrative account
Conflict is an outcome of action / strategy selection
Toward an integrative account
Conflict is an outcome of action / strategy selection
Conflict is aversive (registers as a cost)
Toward an integrative account
Conflict is an outcome of action / strategy selection
Conflict is aversive (registers as a cost)
Conflict informs subsequent decision making
Toward an integrative account
Conflict is an outcome of action / strategy selection
Conflict is aversive (registers as a cost)
Conflict avoidance
Conflict informs subsequent decision making
Toward an integrative account
task cue
strategy
stimulus task cue
strategyresponse
stimulus task cue
strategyresponse
conflict
stimulus task cue
strategyresponse
conflict
Law of least mental effort:
All else being equal, actions will be chosen so as to minimize the demand for cognitive control (indexed by processing conflict).
Law of least effort (Hull): All else being equal, actions will be chosen so as to minimize the amount of work performed.
Macleod, Hunt & Mathews, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978
STAR ABOVE CROSS
“One basis for strategy selection: minimization of cognitive workload.”
-- Reichle, Carpenter & Just, Cog. Psychol., 2003.
4
3
90% switch 10% switch
Botvinick, CABN, 2007
Card
Card
Botvinick, CABN, 2007
Card
Botvinick, CABN, 2007
Card
Botvinick, CABN, 2007
Anticipatory skin conductance responses
Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Lee, Journal of Neuroscience, 1999.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Performance Decision
SCR (area)
High demand
Low demand
Botvinick & Rosen, Psych Res, in press
Botvinick & Rosen, Psych Res, in press
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Performance Decision
SCR (area)
High demand
Low demand
Botvinick & Rosen, Psych Res, in press
SCR ACC (Nagai, Critchley, Featherstone, Trimble, & Dolan, 2004)
ACC damage loss of effort- and IGT-related SCR (Naccache et al., 2005))
8
9
3
Deciding your pay…
X
6
1
9
3
4
Deciding your pay…
$
2000 ms
2000 ms
2000-8000 ms
2000 ms
2000-8000 ms
2
4
8
9
3
Deciding your pay…
X
6
1
9
3
4
Deciding your pay…
$
2000 ms
2000 ms
2000-8000 ms
2000 ms
2000-8000 ms
X $
Botvinick, Huffstetler & McGuire, in press
Botvinick, Huffstetler & McGuire, in press
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
-0.2 0.2
ACC EffectD
LP
FC
Eff
ect
Conclusions
Conflict can be viewed as an index of the demand for control
The occurrence of conflict appears to be detected in the brain
Conflict detection appears to impact cognitive control
Conflict may also register as a cost
Tasks / strategies may be chosen so as to minimize conflict
Where does this put us?
Where does this put us?
Chipping away at the homunculus
Where does this put us?
Chipping away at the homunculus
But this is just about modulating task representations
Where does this put us?
Chipping away at the homunculus
But this is just about modulating task representations
How are task representations selected in the first place?
Where does this put us?
Chipping away at the homunculus
But this is just about modulating task representations
How are task representations selected in the first place?
How are they sequenced?
Where does this put us?
Chipping away at the homunculus
But this is just about modulating task representations
How are task representations selected in the first place?
How are they sequenced?
Dynamics (decision-making) and Learning