How non-veridical perception drives actions in healthy humans: evidence from synaesthesia

Stimulus decay functions in action control

When facing particular combinations of stimuli and responses, people create temporary event-files integrating the corresponding stimulus and response features. Subsequent repetition of one or more of these features retrieves the entire event-file, which impairs performance if not all features are repeated (partial-repetition costs). In the literature, different decay functions have been reported presumably dependent on the type of feature that is repeated (e.g. target vs. distractor features). Here, we use a variant of the S1R1-S2R2 and distractor-response binding task and analyze for the first time target-based and distractor-based event-file decay functions within the same task and sample. While we found evidence for decay functions and also stronger retrieval due to target than distractor repetitions, slopes of the decay functions were comparable suggesting that the decay process itself is equal irrespective of the type of stimulus feature that is repeated. Our study thereby confirms overarching approaches that summarize paradigm specific findings with the same set of core processes.

Neural dynamics of stimulus-response representations during inhibitory control

The investigation of action control processes is one major field in cognitive neuroscience and several theoretical frameworks have been proposed. One established framework is the "Theory of Event Coding" (TEC). However, only rarely, this framework has been used in the context of response inhibition and how stimulus-response association or binding processes modulate response inhibition performance. Particularly the neural dynamics of stimulus-response representations during inhibitory control are elusive. To address this, we examined n = 40 healthy controls and combined temporal EEG signal decomposition with source localization and temporal generalization multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA). We show that overlaps in features of stimuli used to trigger either response execution or inhibition compromised task performance. According to TEC, this indicates that binding processes in event file representations impact response inhibition through partial repetition costs. In the EEG data, reconfiguration of event files modulated processes in time windows well-known to reflect distinct response inhibition mechanisms. Crucially, event file coding processes were only evident in a specific fraction of neurophysiological activity associated with the inferior parietal cortex (BA40). Within that specific fraction of neurophysiological activity, the decoding of the dynamics of event file representations using temporal generalization MVPA suggested that event file representations are stable across several hundred milliseconds, and that event file coding during inhibitory control is reflected by a sustained activation pattern of neural dynamics.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The "mental representation" of how stimulus input translate into the appropriate response is central for goal-directed behavior. However, little is known about the dynamics of such representations on the neurophysiological level when it comes to the inhibition of motor processes. This dynamic is shown in the current study.

A distinct electrophysiological signature for synaesthesia that is independent of individual differences in sensory sensitivity

People with synaesthesia have been reported to show atypical electrophysiological responses to certain simple sensory stimuli, even if these stimuli are not inducers of synaesthesia. However, it is unclear whether this constitutes a neural marker that is relatively specific to synaesthesia or whether it reflects some other trait that co-occurs with synaesthesia, but is not specific to it. One candidate is atypical sensory sensitivity (e.g., strong aversion to certain lights and sounds, 'sensory overload') which is a feature of both synaesthesia and autism and that varies greatly in the neurotypical population. Using visual evoked-potentials (to stimuli varying in spatial frequency) and auditory-evoked potentials (to stimuli varying in auditory frequency), we found that synaesthetes had a modulated visual evoked-potential around P1/N1 (emanating from fusiform cortex), a greater auditory N1, as well as differences in the time-frequency domain (increased alpha and beta induced power for visual stimuli). This was distinct from that found in non-synaesthetes. By contrast, no significant electrophysiological differences were found that were linked to neurotypical variation in sensory sensitivity.