Predictive Mechanisms in Action, Perception, Cognition, and Clinical Disorders

Editorial

31 August 2022

Editorial: Predictive mechanisms in action, perception, cognition, and clinical disorders

Anila M. D'Mello

Patric Bach

Philip R. Corlett

and

Liron Rozenkrantz

1,766 views

1 citations

Editors

Anila Maria D'Mello

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Patric Bach

University of Aberdeen

Philip R Corlett

Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Yale University

Liron Rozenkrantz

Bar-Ilan University

Impact

The structure of ideomotor paradigms with social and non-social effects. In the response effect compatibility paradigm (A) actions elicit effects with either matching (compatible condition; here: right button presses trigger stimuli presented on the right side of the screen or rightward eye movement of the partner) or non-matching features (incompatible condition; here: right button presses trigger stimuli presented on the left side of the screen or leftward eye movement of the partner). Studies compare action initiation times for actions with compatible and non-compatible effects. In the acquisition phase of the two-stage learning paradigm (B), participants learn associations between actions and elicited effects (here: left and right button presses are associated with different geometric shapes or with different facial expressions). In the subsequent test phase, participants have to execute responses after stimuli that served as action effects in the acquisition phase are presented to them. Studies compare response times or choice frequencies for stimulus-response pairings that are congruent and incongruent with the previously acquired action-effect associations.

Mini Review

02 June 2022

Social Action Effects: Representing Predicted Partner Responses in Social Interactions

Bence Neszmélyi

, 2 more and

Roland Pfister

The sociomotor framework outlines a possible role of social action effects on human action control, suggesting that anticipated partner reactions are a major cue to represent, select, and initiate own body movements. Here, we review studies that elucidate the actual content of social action representations and that explore factors that can distinguish action control processes involving social and inanimate action effects. Specifically, we address two hypotheses on how the social context can influence effect-based action control: first, by providing unique social features such as body-related, anatomical codes, and second, by orienting attention towards any relevant feature dimensions of the action effects. The reviewed empirical work presents a surprisingly mixed picture: while there is indirect evidence for both accounts, previous studies that directly addressed the anatomical account showed no signs of the involvement of genuinely social features in sociomotor action control. Furthermore, several studies show evidence against the differentiation of social and non-social action effect processing, portraying sociomotor action representations as remarkably non-social. A focus on enhancing the social experience in future studies should, therefore, complement the current database to establish whether such settings give rise to the hypothesized influence of social context.

2,290 views

5 citations

(A) (left panel) Position of stimulation electrodes underneath left foot. (right panel) Average of the somatosensory evoked potential for all participants over Cz electrode in 100% BW and unweighted conditions synchronized to the electric stimulation (dashed line). Note that for the figure, only we have superimposed the two conditions relative to the P50 amplitude. (B) Mean amplitude of the averaged P50N90 SEP evoked by the electric stimulation during 100% BW and unweighted condition for all participants (error bars are standard error across participants). (C) Amplitude of the averaged P50N90 SEP for each participant.

Original Research

14 June 2022

Partial Unweighting in Obese Persons Enhances Tactile Transmission From the Periphery to Cortical Areas: Impact on Postural Adjustments

Marie Fabre

, 3 more and

Pascale Chavet

1,361 views

1 citations

Original Research

12 May 2022

The Neural Representation of a Repeated Standard Stimulus in Dyslexia

Sara D. Beach

, 5 more and

John D. E. Gabrieli

The neural representation of a repeated stimulus is the standard against which a deviant stimulus is measured in the brain, giving rise to the well-known mismatch response. It has been suggested that individuals with dyslexia have poor implicit memory for recently repeated stimuli, such as the train of standards in an oddball paradigm. Here, we examined how the neural representation of a standard emerges over repetitions, asking whether there is less sensitivity to repetition and/or less accrual of “standardness” over successive repetitions in dyslexia. We recorded magnetoencephalography (MEG) as adults with and without dyslexia were passively exposed to speech syllables in a roving-oddball design. We performed time-resolved multivariate decoding of the MEG sensor data to identify the neural signature of standard vs. deviant trials, independent of stimulus differences. This “multivariate mismatch” was equally robust and had a similar time course in the two groups. In both groups, standards generated by as few as two repetitions were distinct from deviants, indicating normal sensitivity to repetition in dyslexia. However, only in the control group did standards become increasingly different from deviants with repetition. These results suggest that many of the mechanisms that give rise to neural adaptation as well as mismatch responses are intact in dyslexia, with the possible exception of a putatively predictive mechanism that successively integrates recent sensory information into feedforward processing.

2,127 views

4 citations