Synchronization between prefrontal (executive) and posterior (association) cortices seems a plausible mechanism for temporary maintenance of information. However, while EEG studies reported involvement of (pre)frontal midline structures in synchronization, functional neuroimaging elucidated the importance of lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) in working memory (WM). Verbal and spatial WM rely on lateralized subsystems (phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad, respectively), yet only trends for hemispheric dissociation of networks supporting rehearsal of verbal and spatial information were identified by EEG. As oscillatory activity is WM load dependent, we applied an individually tailored submaximal load for verbal (V) and spatial (S) task to enhance synchronization in the relevant functional networks. To map these networks, we used high-density EEG and coherence analysis. Our results imply that the synchronized activity is limited to highly specialized areas that correspond well with the areas identified by functional neuroimaging. In both V and S task, two independent networks of theta synchronization involving dorsolateral PFC of each hemisphere were revealed. In V task, left prefrontal and left parietal areas were functionally coupled in gamma frequencies. Theta synchronization thus provides the necessary interface for storage and manipulation of information, while left-lateralized gamma synchronization could represent the EEG correlate of the phonological loop.
COBISS.SI-ID: 2504108
Parkinson's disease (PD) patients show signs of cognitive impairment, such as executive dysfunction, working memory problems and attentional disturbances, even in the early stages of the disease. Though motor symptoms of the disease are often successfully addressed by dopaminergic medication, it still remains unclear, how dopaminergic therapy affects cognitive function. The main objective of this study was to assess the effect of dopaminergic medication on visual and auditory attentional processing. 14 PD patients and 13 matched healthy controls performed a three-stimulus auditory and visual oddball task while their EEG was recorded. The patients performed the task twice, once on- and once off-medication. While the results showed no significant differences between PD patients and controls, they did reveal a significant increase in P3 amplitude on- vs. off-medication specific to processing of auditory distractors and no other stimuli. These results indicate significant effect of dopaminergic therapy on processing of distracting auditory stimuli. With a lack of between group differences the effect could reflect either 1) improved recruitment of attentional resources to auditory distractors; 2) reduced ability for cognitive inhibition of auditory distractors; 3) increased response to distractor stimuli resulting in impaired cognitive performance; or 4) hindered ability to discriminate between auditory distractors and targets. Further studies are needed to differentiate between these possibilities.
COBISS.SI-ID: 2121132
Protecting information from distraction is essential for optimal performance of working memory. We examined how the presence of distracting stimuli influences spatial working memory and compared the effect of both task-similar and negatively emotionally salient distractors. We checked the effect of distractors on the accuracy of high-resolution representations, as well as the maintenance of spatial categories, and more precisely defined not only the existence but also the direction of the distracting influences (towards or away from the position of the distractor). Participants (n = 25, 8 men, 19%31 years old) were asked to remember the exact position of a target scrambled image and recall it with a joystick after a delay. In some trials an additional distracting image (scrambled, neutral or negative) was shown during the delay. We measured the spread of responses (standard deviation of angular error) and shifts of the average response towards the prototype angles (45°) or towards the position of distractors. Distracting stimuli did not affect the spread of responses and decreased the tendency of participants to move the responses towards the prototype angle. Different types of distractors did not differ in this effect. Contrary to expectations, the participants moved their responses away from the position of distractors; this effect was more pronounced for negative distractors. In addition to memorizing the exact position and maintaining attention on the position of the stimulus, participants are likely to strategically use information about spatial category membership (quadrants) and information about the position of the distractor. The repulsive effect of the distractor likely results from inhibition of its position and indicates the need to supplement computational models of spatial working memory and to take into account different strategies of working memory use.
COBISS.SI-ID: 59271522