introduction results pre-post spatial delayed...
TRANSCRIPT
NIH MH064498 (B. R. P.), NRSA GM007507 (UW-Madison NTP)
Relating individual differences in short-term memory-derived EEG to cognitive training effectsBornali Kundu, David W. Sutterer, Bradley R. Postle
Neuroscience Training Program, Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin - MadisonNeuroscience Training Program, Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Does training on a working memory task show systematic task-related changes in an individualʼs delay-period
activity?
IntroductionIntroduction
Does training on a working memory task show changes in cortical effective connectivity?
+
++
++
++
+
+ +
Fixation
Targets
Delay Probe
1000 ms 3750 ms 2000 ms
ITI
1000 ms
400 ms200 ms
..
..
37500
TMS TMS
2000 ±250
Voltage (i.e., ERP) measures of the delay-period during a working memory task show considerable individual differences that correlate with memory span (Vogel et al., 2004)
MethodsMethods
Spectral measures of delay-period EEG activity show considerable in-dividual differences and are also stable and trait-like (Kundu et al., SFN 2010 poster, shown above)
Training on delayed-recall tasks causes changes in BOLD and FA measures that localize to fronto-parietal brain regions (Olesen et al, 2004; Takeuchi et al., 2010)
Prolonged, adaptive training on WM tasks improves performance on the task itself, as well as on nonmnemonic tests of general fluid intel-ligence (gF), with the largest gains seen in low gF individuals (Jaeggi et al., 2008)
Pre-Post Spatial Delayed Recognition EEG and TMS-EEGPre-Post Spatial Delayed Recognition EEG and TMS-EEG
There is change in neural contralateral delay activity (CDA) between pre- and post-training sessions. Increased separation of load-related CDA (loads 6, 4, and 2) post-training vs pre-training for experi-mental compared to control subjects.
TrainingTrainingERSP(dB)
−5
0
5
0 1000 2000 3000−5
5
Time (ms)
dB
10
20
30
40
50
20 40dB
0 1000 2000 3000−5
5
Time (ms)
10
20
30
40
50
20 40
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
dB
Subject 1
ERSP(dB)
−2
0
2
0 1000 2000 3000−4
2
Time (ms)dB
10
20
30
40
50
20 40dB
0 1000 2000 3000−42
Time (ms)
10
20
30
40
50
20 40
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
dB
Subject 2
2 Groups : Dual N-back training 2 Groups : Dual N-back training (n=3; Brain Workshop http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/) and control trainingcontrol training (n=3 ; Tetris http://www.gosu.pl/tetris/); randomized. Both groups trained 40 minutes per day, 5 times per week, for 5 weeks. The control task does not have overt memory de-mands. Subjects were assessed pre- and post- training by select measures.
0 5 10 15 20 251.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5Dual N-Back Training Performance
0 5 10 15 20 25−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Subject 3Subject 4Subject 5
Control Task (Tetris) Performance
Sum
Tot
al H
igh
Scor
e (Z
nor
m)
Training DayTraining Day
Mea
n N
Lev
el R
each
ed (r
aw)
Subject 1Subject 2Subject 6
5 10 15 20 25
−3
−2.5
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Subject 1 (smooth)Subject 2 (smooth)Subject 6 (smooth) fit y=A*exp^(-b*x)+c
Dual N-Back Training Performance
Mea
n N
Lev
el R
each
ed (Z
nor
m)
slope: “Growth Rate”
Avg train-ing gain
Learning on both tasks well fit by power law. Data were smoothed with moving average window over 5 day span. Comparable growth rates for both tasks implies effective learning. Mean b(nback)b(nback)=0.0012, adj R =0.89; mean b(tetris)b(tetris) = 0.0011, adj R =0.747. Experimental group showed positive correlation be-tween training gains and delay period power in the theta (4-7 Hz) and alpha (8-14 Hz) bands. Negative correlation found between gains and gamma (26-50 Hz) band power. Control group showed positive cor-relations between training gain and alpha band power. No relationship was apparent between gains and beta (15-25 Hz) band power for either group.
−200 0 200 400 600 800
−2
−1
0
1
2P5/P6
time (ms)
uV
−200 0 200 400 600
800−2
−1
0
1
2P5/P6
time (ms)
uV
−200 0 200 400 800−3−2−10123 avg
600
Control
time (ms)−200 0 200 400 600 800
−3−2−10123 avg
Experimental
time (ms)
Pre-Post Psychometric MeasuresPre-Post Psychometric Measures
Pre-Post “Change Detection” ERP MeasuresPre-Post “Change Detection” ERP Measures
Post-TrainingPre-Training
Load 2 Load 4Load 6
Comparison of CDA amplitude for Load 4 minus Load 2 during the pre- and post- training sessions
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000 3000
5
Time (ms)
dB
10
20
30
40
50
20 40
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
dB
ERSP(dB)
−5
0
5
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000 3000−5
5
Time (ms)
dB
10
20
30
40
50
20 60
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
dB
Pre-training DPSP Post-training DPSP
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000 3000 −5
5
Time (ms)
dB
10
20
30
40
50
20 60
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
dB
Subject 6
Subject 4
Subject 6
Subject 4
Pre-trainingPost-training
uA/mmSCD
SCS mm
bPL
Geodesic Distance toTMS mm
2
2
Measure
K
RAPM
OSPAN
Delay period event related spectral per-turbation (DPSP) plots for Load 4 Le� target condi�on, chan-nel P6, for 2 sub-jects. Subject 6 (top) is experimental. Subejct 4 is control. Subject-specific spectral patterns remain stable even with training pertur-bation.
Left: TMS evoked response for same 2 subejcts is also stable and trait-like.
Below: Absolute change in power between pre- and post-training delay period EEG divided into theta (4-7Hz), alpha (8-14Hz), beta (15-25Hz) and gamma (26-50Hz) bands. The fronto-parieto-occipital topographic dis-tribution of absolute power change is reminis-cent of results of past studies. Spefically, there are changes in frontal mid-line theta and posterior alpha power.
L target
R target
Experimental ControlTheta Alpha Beta Gamma Theta Alpha Beta Gamma
Global SCD
Global SCS
Global bPL
Expt
Expt
Expt
Cntrl
Cntrl
Cntrl
Pre-trainingPost-training
Global measures of effective con-nectivity (Significant Current Density (SCD); Significant Current Scatter (SCS); and broadband Phase Locking (bPL) (Casali et al.) Experimental subjects show smaller fluctuations across measures and less variation within pre- and post-training ses-sions.
Above: Effec�ve conec�vity measures for a single subject.
Pre-training Post-training
ConclusionsConclusionsTraining on a demanding working memory task :
1. Gains predicted by pre-training EEG (low-freq power).2. Generalizes to other mea-sures, including K and gF.3. ERP correlate of K, the CDA, sharpens with training.4. EEG suggests fronto- (theta) parietooccipital (alpha) strengthening.5. TMS suggests systematic changes in the cortical effective connectivity.
Subject 6 (Expt) Pre-training Subject 6 (Expt) Post-training
uV
Session
uV
ERSP(dB)
−5
0
5
−2000 −1000 0 1000 2000 3000−5
5
Time (ms)
dB
10
20
30
40
50
20 60
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
dB
−5
10
0uV
uV
-10
-10
10
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600�me(ms)
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
�me(ms) �me(ms)
�me(ms)
10
0uV
-10
10
0uV
-10
uV
Pre- and post- training measuresPre- and post- training measures
Electrophysiological measures: Electrophysiological measures: 1. Spatial delayed-recognition task: Serial presentation of 2 or 4 identical square stimuli in different locations with lateralized presentation (randomized). Subjects were instructed to remember the locations marked by each stimulus in the cued hemifield. 160 trials per session. TMS was delivered to left SPL for 50% of trials (randomized). 2. Change-detection task: Stimuli were presented simultaneously. Load 2, 4, and 6 were tested (randomized). Lateralized display. Subjects were instructed to remember color and location of colored square stimuli in the cued hemifield. 200 trials per con-dition. Task parameters replicated from Vogel et al., 2004.
Psychometric Measures:Psychometric Measures:1. Short term memory capacity (K value) derived from change detection task. K = S(H-FA)2. Ravenʼs Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM; Raven, 1990)3. Operation Span (OPAN; Turner & Engle, 1989)
TMS/EEG:TMS/EEG:Recorded with a 60-channel TMS-compatible amplifier (Nexstim, Helenski, Finland).Sample-and-hold circuit holds amplifier output constant from 100 us to 2 ms post-stimulus. Data were acquired at 1450 Hz, downsampled to 500 Hz and filtered (0.1-80 Hz) offline. All data processing was done with a combination of MATLAB (Mathworks, Inc), EEGLAB and ERPtoolbox (USCD) and, Fieldtrip (Donders Institute, Ni-jmegen). Effective connectivity analysis methods follow Casali et al. 2010. Data-driven mea-sures include Significant Current Density (SCD; local regional measure); Significant Current Scatter (SCS; long range distance measure), and broadband phase locking (bPL; temporal measure). Mathematically orthogonal.
22