PSYCH 375 midterm 3

Situations where error signals are related to performance monitoring

• Pre-response conflict:

• Decision uncertainty:

• Response error:

• Negative feedback:

Error signal: pre-response conflict

occurs when a stimuli activates multiple response tendencies (e.g. the stroop effect)

Error signal: decision uncertainty

lack of confidence in a decision

Error signal: Response error

an error made with some level of awareness

Error signal: Negative feedback

being told you have made a mistake

Types or ERN

• response ERN

• feedback ERN

Response ERN

Occurs without feedback

Feedback ERN

peaks ~250-300 ms after feedback indicating a mistake

Mind wandering

sometimes referred to as off-task thought, task-unrelated thought, stimulus-independent thought, or daydreaming

• distinction between coupled and decoupled attention

Major challenge with mind wandering research

Lack of experimental control

How mind wandering has been conceived

• Attention decoupled from the environment (or ‘primary task’) (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006)

• A failure of executive control (McVay & Kane, 2010)

• Type of mental process characterized by a particular kind of flow, or movement, of thought across topics (Christoff et al., 2018)

• By taking a family resemblance approach (Seli et al., 2018)

Mind wandering associated with changes in

• Behavioural (performance, response time, general behavioural variability, eye-movements)

• Neural (default mode activity, ERPs, oscillations) Peanuts, by Charles Schulz

• Frequency of MW reported varies across certain clinical populations (depressed, anxious, OCD, ADD), as well as across the lifespan

Coupled attention

How is the brain processing stuff in immediate environment

• study by presenting stimuli and have complete control over it

Decoupled attention

Involves attentional focus that are decoupled from immediate environment/sensory input

• mind wandering

Mind wandering possible costs

academic achievement, workplace productivity, distracted driving, negative effects on mood, reduced vigilance, general impairments in comprehension, performance, etc.

Mind wandering possible benefits

creativity, problem solving, insight, planning, dishabituation, memory consolidation, positive effects on mood, associative and/or divergent thinking, etc.

Self report in mind wandering

primary means of measurement used in ___ research, though reports are sometimes considered in the context of other converging measures (e.g. performance, neural activity, etc.) for validation purposes

Experience sampling paradigms

use pseudo-randomly timed probes embedded within another experimental task to measure self-reported MW

• MW responses to ~ 20-50% of probes is typical

Triangulation

can also be used to attempt to ‘validate’ the reports, which involves looking for multiple converging measures (e.g. reports, performance, and neural activity)

Sustained attention to response task

• often used to study mind wandering

• Participants are presented with a series of digits and are asked to press a button in response to everything except for the target number (e.g. 3)

• Failure to inhibit the (prepotent) response to targets is taken as behavioural evidence for mind wandering

SART and self reports

looking at both the self reports and behavioural data should allow researchers to compare periods of time in which participants are focused (i.e. on task) with periods of time in which they are not (i.e. off task, or mind wandering)

Attention and ERP

• The amplitude of the P1 is reduced when experimental participants report having been ‘mind wandering’ immediately after a visual stimulus is presented, relative to when they report having been ‘on-task’

• P300, which is related to processing meaning, is also attenuate just prior to reports of mind wandering

Zoning out

Response if you didnt realize you were mind wandering so we stopped you and asked you to make a report

Tuning out

Knew they were mind wandering (mind wandering with awareness)

Default network more active during

periods of decoupled attention, and less active during periods of coupled attention

Christoff et al. (2009) combined SART with fMRI methods

In addition to periodically reporting task focus (on-task or off-task), participants in were also asked to incorporate the dimension of awareness into their reports (i.e. being aware or unaware of your attentional focus just prior to being probed)

Christoff et al. (2009) combined SART with fMRI results

• The default network was indeed found to be more active just prior to reports of mind wandering, as well as regions associated with executive control

• Notice the involvement of some familiar structures that can be considered part of the default network (PFC, ACC, TPJ, etc.)

• Can contrast what the brain looked like just prior to reporting MW with awareness, as compared to MW without awareness

• MW w/o awareness was associated with stronger neural activation of both default mode and executive control regions

• May help explain why we can sometimes get so ‘lost’ in deep mind wandering episodes

Self et al., 2016 spontaneous vs deliberate mind wandering

argued that mind wandering that is of an unintentional nature (‘spontaneous’ mind wandering) may be somewhat different than mind wandering of an intentional nature (‘deliberate’ mind wandering)

• may also be the case that some people have better control over their mind wandering, and are able to more flexibly engage/disengage in it when appropriate

Goldberg et al. (2017) methods

• asked participants to complete a questionnaire designed to assess trait-levels of both spontaneous and deliberate mind wandering

• This attempted to quantify each participant’s relative propensity to engage in each type of mind wandering

• They then used fMRI to quantity both cortical thickness and functional connectivity in the brains of these participants, looking for differences as a function of tendency to engage in each type of mind wandering

Goldberg et al. (2017) results for participants with more frequent deliberate mind wandering

• associated with thicker cortical matter in PFC

• May implicate a more robust integration of the default mode network and the fronto-parietal executive network (possibly implicating better control?)

• This could help explain why these individuals may have better control over their mind wandering

Goldberg et al. (2017) results for participants with more frequent spontaneous mind wandering

• Cortical thinning in regions involved with cognitive control (parietal and posterior temporal left-hemisphere regions) (possibly implicating worse control?)

• Greater connectivity between the intraparietal sulcus and a region of cortex that makes contact with both limbic and default mode regions (possibly implicating ‘stronger’ input from the default mode network?)

Goldberg et al. (2017) summary

• various neurological differences seem to be associated with individual differences in mind wandering behaviour

• In addition to structural differences (white matter thickness), some differences in functional connectivity were also observed

• Highlights the value in taking multiple kinds of imaging measures (not just ‘hot spots’ of activation), as well as the richness of a concept like mind wandering

Methods for studying mind wandering

• TMS

• Eye tracking

• FNIRS

  • In various ecologically valid contexts (driving simulator or classroom)

TMS mind wandering

can we increase/decrease MW by increasing/decreasing activity in certain neural regions

Eye-tracking mind wandering

able to measure changes in where people look, for how long, pupil dilation, etc. (Reichle et al.m 2011)

fNIRS mind wandering

can measure default mode activation

Characterizing boredom

• Structural equation modelling supports the idea boredom is a distinct construct from apathy, anhedonia, and depression (Goldberg, Eastwood, Laguardia, & Danckert, 2011)

• Seems to share a close relationship with arousal and mind wandering (Danckert, Haammerschmidt, Marty-Dugas, & Smilek, 2018)

• Is often found to be elevated in various clinical populations (e.g. ADHD, those with TBIs, etc.)

• Failure of executive control

Video games context

• mainstream now (with an estimated 2.5 billion players in the world!)

• This is thanks in part to the rise in popularity of the ‘casual’ gamer (e.g. smart phone games)

Video game genre popularity

From most to least

• action

• Shooter

• Sports

• Role-playing

• Adventure = fighting

• Racing

• Strategy

• Family entertainment

• Casual

• Other/compilations

• Children’s entertainment = Arcade = flight

Video game research generally

• We often present research starting from the perspective of trying to under a particular cognitive or neurological system (e.g. working memory)

• In contrast, for this type of investigation, we’re kind of doing the opposite: starting with a particular kind of experience, and trying to connect it to cognitive or neurological systems that may be affected/relevant in some way

• We can also think of this lecture as a bit of a ‘case study’ or sorts… how do researchers figure out what effects can be observed, and/or explained, related to partaking in certain kinds of activities

• In theory, this type of investigation should also speak more generally to experience-dependent plasticity

Dale et al. 2020 unique characteristics of action video games

1. Fast pace (constant constraints related to time pressure)

2. Need to distribute attention across the whole visual field (including periphery)

3. Need to deploy focused attention at times

4. Multitasking

5. Sufficient variability and unpredictableness that automatization cannot occur

Video game approaches to experimental designs

1. Quasi-experimental designs

• One major complication: do video games enhance cognitive/perceptual abilities, or do people who already have enhanced cognitive/perceptual abilities choose to play games more often?

2. True experimental designs

Compared to non-action video games, action video gamers demonstrate (fine perceptual discrimination):

• Lower contrast thresholds for detecting low-contrast stimuli

• Better identification of small stimuli in crowded displays

• Better multi-sensory temporal processing (e.g. determine which came first, a beep or a flash on the screen)

• Larger ‘useful’ field of view

Compared to non-action video games, action video gamers demonstrate (working memory):

• Better performance on visual short-term memory tasks (e.g. change detection)

• Better updating/monitoring of working memory

• Faster task switching

• Better general multi-tasking capabilities

Compared to non-action video games, action video gamers demonstrate (response times):

• Faster response times across a range of response methods (voice, manual, saccadic)

• Importantly, this occurs independent of any evidence for a speed-accuracy tradeoffs

Compared to non-action video games, action video gamers demonstrate (enhanced attention):

• Better visual search performance

• A better ability to flexibly distribute attention over space, as well as monitoring/tracking objects

Wu et al. 2012 training in games results

• N1 and P1 were found to be relatively unaffected after the manipulation, seemingly speaking to (a lack of?) early attentional effects

• On the other hand, those in the FPS condition demonstrated larger amplitudes for the P2 and P3 components after the manipulation (suggesting ‘later’ effects)

Wu et al. 2012 follow up analysis

• grouped the participants in the FPS group according to whether they improved at the game after training (FPS +) or not (FPS -)

• Notice that the change in components seems to be restricted to those participants who improved at the game (FPS +)

• Did they get better because they had larger responses to the stimuli, or something else altogether?

• Observations that later ERPs seem to differ in action video game players seems consistent that AVGPs dont differ in attentional control of early sensory processing but maybe the later stages of attentional processing

Action video game hypothesis

• action video game players may have better attentional control

• Action video game players may have better attentional selection related to early sensory processing

fMRI AVGPs

• seems to be associated with changes in parietal lobe (attentional control) rather than occipital lobe (early sensory processing)

• Motion sensitive areas (medial temporal and medial superior temporal cortex) become activated less by moving distractions in AVGPs

Steady-state visually evoked potentials (AVGPs)

Indicate that AVGPs demonstrate better filtering abilities which attenuate signals related to distractions

Central executive network

Important for working memory, planning

• frontal and prefrontal

Salience network

Important for integration of sensory, emotional, intéroceptives signals, and salient stimuli detection