Fluid and adaptive changes of prospective memory control
Seth R. Koslov and Jarrod A. Lewis-Peacock
2.
“Top-Down”
“Bottom-Up”
High Cognitive Cost
Low Cognitive Cost
Frontoparietal Control Network
Attention and Episodic Retrieval Networks
Favored when WM resources available
Favored when WM resources low
precuneus
laPFC
Find
this arrow:
Easier
0.20
!"&
Reactive
200
Single
Task
Dual
Task
PM
Cost
Single
Task
Dual
Task
PM
Cost
How are PM strategies used when task demands vary?
Experiment design
(probes n-3:n-1)
PM cost slope =
Reactive
(probes 1-3)
Trial length(n-1 probes)
n=10
OG task performance:
single task
1.4
0.6
0.5
RT(s)
0.7
Reactive
0.6
Easier
Harder
OG task difficulty
0.4
β=6.93
p(β>0) = .999
PM Strategy
β=-4.22
p(β<0) = .971
0.75
β=.93
p(β>0) = .886
.50
.25
0.0
0.5
Average PM cost (s)
1.0
Proactive
1.0
.75
β=-.76
p(β<0) = .874
.50
.25
0.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
Average PM cost (s)
1.0
SUMMARY
H1. Individuals are able to flexibly and rapidly adapt cognitive control strategies
in response to moment-to-moment changes in overall cognitive demands
H2. Flexibly adapting to changing cognitive demands improves delayed
execution of goals (prospective memory)
H3. Contrary to expectations, proactive strategy use can degrade subsequent
0.50
Neural evidence corroborates behavioral findings:
Individuals dynamically adjust PM strategy in response to changing task demands
0.25
0.00
-.10
-.05
Reactive
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Statistical analyses reflect fixed-effects regression with
bootstrap resampling (N=51; 1,000 bootstraps).
• What neural mechanisms underlie adaptive cognitive flexibility?
• When and why does proactive control impair long-term memory?
Pilot data: Using MVPA of fMRI data to quantify adaptive flexibility (n=2)
.00
PM cost slope
.05
PM Strategy
1.00
Evidence of proactive control
decreases as OG task difficulty increases
0.4
.10
Decreasing difficulty trials
0.50
0.25
Proactive
1.00
p<.001
PM cost slope
Accuracy
0.9
0.8
0.75
0.00
-1.0
1
0.7
1.0
Optimal
1.00
0.8
1.1
PM Strategy
Sub-Optimal
0.9
1.3
1.2
Predicted PM strategy
All trials combined
“Target!”
Hard
.75
PM strategy
Future directions
Increasing difficulty trials
- PM cost
PM cost
PM feedback
(2s)
“Present”
Reactive
memory for PM goals when cognitive demands are high
Harder
*
Time
3.
Proactive
1.0
0.0
-0.5
Reactive
Easier
modeled after Lewis-Peacock, Cohen, & Norman (2016)4
1.5
Proactive
PM strategy
Flexibility is measured by the change in PM cost over the course of a trial
H3. Proactive strategy use will improve subsequent memory for PM goals
OG task difficulty
0.4
0.4
PM strategy
H2. Adaptive flexibility predicts better PM performance
H2. Adaptive flexibility of control strategy will improve PM performance
Easy
Harder
Performance on the OG task is not systematically
impaired by the addition of the PM task
Proactive
0.0
!
H1. Individuals will flexibly adapt their PM control strategy in response to
rapidly changing task demands
Difficulty manipulated by:
1. Target to distractor coherence
2. Distractor variance range
Easier
!"!#
0.04
Probability of PM correct response
Hypotheses
0
“Absent”
0.6
!"%
0.08
!"!$
100
Probes (1 to 15 per trial)
(2s each)
0.5
0.5
0.12
!"%&
300
Target introduction
(3s)
0.6
0.6
0.16
!"%'
Ongoing Task 500
RT (ms)
Ø
0.9
!"(
H1. Individuals flexibly adapt PM strategy in response to shifting task demands
400
No PM
Target
0.7
0.7
0.7
!"&
Harder
600
Scene
1.0
)
PM cost
Face
Proactive
700
0.8
0.8
!"'
0.8
.2
Reactive
0.9
0.9
1.0
Adaptive flexibility of PM control strategies
Dual-task interference measure reflecting the cost of adding a PM task to an ongoing task (OG)
Dual Task:
Probe Example
.4
PM accuracy is the same across
OG task difficulty levels
McDaniel et al. (2013), PsychSci5
Measuring strategy use for PM
The classic behavioral metric is: PM Cost1,2,4
Ongoing Task:
.6
rMTL
Proactive strategies when cognitive demands are low
Reactive strategies when cognitive demands are high
PM Task:
1.1
)")
0
When task demands are stable, individuals tend
to use the appropriate strategy4,5, e.g. :
Average PM Cost
11
Reactive strategy use predicts better
long-term remembering
Proactive
β=9.73
p(β>0) = .998
Ventral temporal
cortex and posterior
parahippocampal
gyrus (~2500 voxels)
0.75
L2-penalized logistic
regression (λ=50)
0.50
Three-way classifier:
face, scene, no-target
during probes
Behavioral and neural metrics of
strategy flexibility are correlated
0.3 p<.001
β=-.01
p=.077
0.3
PM cost slope
Spontaneous Intention Retrieval
1.2
)"*
.8
Dissociable strategy related
functional-connectivity
-0.5
OG task performance:
0.0
0.5
dual task
Conclusions
Strategic Monitoring of Environment
1.3
)"+
Accuracy
Reactive
p=.71
1.0
PM performance
Harder Trials:
Proactive strategy use predicts better
long-term remembering
Classifier evidence of
proactive control
Multiple process theory for PM1,2,3
Proactive
Poster
L&M
@ AC
Finish
Code!
Probability of PM correct response
d
Rea iel
an
McD per
pa
p<.001
Easier Trials:
Dual task performance (n=51)
Accuracy
The ability to remember to perform goalrelevant actions at the appropriate time.
ting
Mee m
@ 2p
Memory accuracy
Pick
u
milk p
*
Probability of PM correct response
What
is prospective memory (PM)?
Background
RESULTS
H3. Optimal (not just proactive) strategy use predicts better subsequent memory
Memory accuracy
INTRODUCTION
RT (s)
1.
Department of Psychology, Center for Learning and Memory, Imaging Research Center, University of Texas at Austin
0.2
0.2
r=.56
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.1
Easier
Harder
OG task difficulty
-0.2
-.050 -.025 .000 .025 .050 .075
Classifier evidence slope
0.25
References:
1. McDaniel, M.A. & Einstein, G.O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127-S144.
0.00
-.10
2. Beck, S.M., Ruge, H., Walser, M., Goschke, T. (2014). The functional neuroanatomy of spontaneous retrieval and strategic monitoring of delayed intentions. Neuropsychologia, 53, 37-50.
-.05
.00
PM cost slope
.05
.10
3. Braver, T.S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(2), 106-113
4. Lewis-Peacock, J.A., Cohen, J.D., Norman, K.A. (2016). Neural evidence of the strategic choice between working memory and episodic memory in prospective remembering. Neuropsychologia, 93, 280-288.
5. McDaniel, M.A., LaMontagne, P., Beck, S.M., Scullin, M.K., & Braver, T.S. (2013). Dissociable neural routes to successful prospective memory. Psychological Science, 24, 1791-1800.
Funding:
UT Systems Neuroscience UT BRAIN seed grant (Lewis-Peacock & Sulzer)
Want a copy?
Follow this link: