On Your Mark, Get Set…; Neural Correlates of Cue-Related Response Preparation Savannah 1 Cookson , Heather 1 Roberts , Greg 1 Szalkowski , 1Georgia Stephanie 1 Spratt , Erin 1 McPherson , Behavioral Results Human behavior relies on the accumulation of taskrelevant information until the range of possible responses is narrowed down to a single correct response. How do we utilize advance information that can help us respond to a future task? How is this performance benefit facilitated in the brain? Previous neuroimaging experiments have found cue-specific activity in the response cuing paradigm5. This experiment investigates the neural correlates of the interaction between task sets and the cuing effect in both control6,7- and sensorimotor8 processing regions using a novel event-related design. Discussion Discussion •  Accuracies at ceiling (Avg Accuracy = 95.1%) •  Significant main effect of cue type on reaction time (RT): p = .011 o  Neutral – Response Cue = 20.07 ± 8.9ms, p = .017 o  Neutral – Stimulus Cue = 21.85 ± 7.9ms, p = .006 o  No difference between Response and Stimulus cues (p = .424) Neuroimaging Results Whole-brain analysis at the stimulus showed activity versus baseline and between stimulus and response types 1 •  Uncued stimulus presentation showed increased bilateral MFG (1), FFG (2), middle/ inferior OC (3), and superior parietal (4) regions. Methods 5 2 3 4 Cue types: •  Stimulus (Face or Place) •  Response (Left or Right) •  Non-informative (O) •  CSI and ITI are jittered exponentially from 2000ms to 8000ms. •  ROI analysis of expected control and sensorimotor regions r •  Uncued Left (yellow) versus right (blue) responses show contralateral activity in cortical motor processing regions (5) and ipsilateral activity in cerebellum (6) 9 7 Future Directions •  ROI analysis will alleviate power issues associated with whole-brain analysis of association cortex 6 •  Uncued places stimuli show increased activity in bilateral MFG (7,8) and PHG (9) over face stimuli. Face stimuli did not produce significant activity compared to place stimuli. •  Behavioral results show the expected behavioral performance benefit for informative cues over neutral; however, face cues do not show an effect •  Whole brain results confirm stimulus-related activation of relevant sensorimotor processing areas; face stimuli do not show significant activity over place stimuli •  Cue-related activity does not survive FDR correction at the .05 level; this may be a result of a lack of power, or may be related to the unexpected results from the face cues/stimuli. •  Face/place localizer task and regions defined in the literature for cuing activity Methods •  Participants were given a cue 500ms before the stimulus. Eric H. 1 Schumacher Institute of Technology, 2University of Iowa Introduction Rosenbaum1 originally used the response cuing paradigm to demonstrate a benefit of advance partial information on upcoming task performance. Adam et al2 later proposed the Grouping Model, in which Gestalt-like subgrouping of the stimulus and response sets drives the cue benefit. This mechanism may more generally reflect the implementation of separate task sets, which represent stimuli, actions, and context associated with a goal3. Through these task sets, we may implement control processes that monitor our actions in context of our goals and adjust behavior accordingly. Task sets have been shown to influence the implementation of control4. Eliot 2 Hazeltine , 8 ***Cue-related activity did not survive FDR correction*** •  Will allow us to directly investigate patterns of activity in areas that are known to be involved in cuing and sensorimotor processing. •  Run and compare results for a group in which faces and places are alternated by finger (1 task) Resources 1. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The Movement Precuing Technique: Assumptions, Applications, and Extensions. In A. M. Richard (Ed.), Advances in Psychology (12, pp. 231-274): North-Holland. 2. Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cogn Psych, 46(3), 302-358. 3. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. TICS, 8(11), 494-500. 4. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. TICS, 12(10), 374-380. 5. Adam, J. J., Backes, W., Rijcken, J., Hofman, P., Kuipers, H., & Jolles, J. (2003). Rapid visuomotor preparation in the human brain: a functional MRI study. Cogn Brain Res, 16(1), 1-10. 6. Badre, D. (2008). Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes. TICS, 12(5), 193-200. 7. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci, 24, 167-202. 8. Egner, T, & Hirsch, y. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nat Neurosci, 8(12), 1784-1790.