It wasn't me! Motor activation from irrelevant spatial information in the absence of a response

Does the involvement of motor cortex in embodied language comprehension stand on solid ground? A p-curve analysis and test for excess significance of the TMS and tDCS evidence

According to the embodied cognition view, comprehending action-related language requires the participation of sensorimotor processes. A now sizeable literature has tested this proposal by stimulating (with TMS or tDCS) motor brain areas during the comprehension of action language. To assess the evidential value of this body of research, we exhaustively searched the literature and submitted the relevant studies (N = 43) to p-curve analysis. While most published studies concluded in support of the embodiment hypothesis, our results suggest that we cannot yet assert beyond reasonable doubt that they explore real effects. We also found that these studies are quite underpowered (estimated power < 30%), which means that a large percentage of them would not replicate if repeated identically. Additional tests for excess significance show signs of publication bias within this literature. In sum, extant brain stimulation studies testing the grounding of action language in the motor cortex do not stand on solid ground. We provide recommendations that will be important for future research on this topic.

Reward does not modulate corticospinal excitability in anticipation of a Stroop trial

Action preparation is associated with a transient decrease of corticospinal excitability just before target onset. We have previously shown that the prospect of reward modulates preparatory corticospinal excitability in a Simon task. While the conflict in the Simon task strongly implicates the motor system, it is unknown whether reward prospect modulates preparatory corticospinal excitability in tasks that implicate the motor system less directly. To that effect, we examined reward-modulated preparatory corticospinal excitability in the Stroop task. We administered a rewarded cue-target delay paradigm using Stroop stimuli that afforded a left or right index finger response. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was administered over the left primary motor cortex and electromyography was obtained from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle. In line with previous findings, there was a preparatory decrease in corticospinal excitability during the delay period. In contrast to our previous study using the Simon task, preparatory corticospinal excitability was not modulated by reward. Our results indicate that reward-modulated changes in the motor system depend on specific task-demands, possibly related to varying degrees of motor conflict.

The effects of declaratively maintaining and proactively proceduralizing novel stimulus-response mappings

Working memory (WM) allows for the maintenance and manipulation of information when carrying out ongoing tasks. Recent models propose that representations in WM can be either in a declarative format (as content of thought) or in a procedural format (in an action-oriented state that drives the cognitive operation to be performed). Current views on the implementation of novel instructions also acknowledge this distinction, assuming these are first encoded as declarative content, and then reformatted into an action-oriented procedural representation upon task demands. Although it is widely accepted that WM has a limited capacity, little is known about the reciprocal costs of maintaining instructions in a declarative format and transforming them in an action code. In a series of three experiments, we asked participants to memorize two or four S-R mappings (i.e., declarative load), and then selected a subset of them by means of a retro-cue to trigger their reformatting into an action-oriented format (i.e., procedural load). We measured the performance in the implementation of the proceduralized mapping and in the declarative recall of the entire set of memorized mappings, to test how the increased load on one component affected the functioning of the other. Our results showed a strong influence of declarative load on the processing of the procedural component, but no effects in the opposite direction. This pattern of results suggests an asymmetry in the costs of maintenance and manipulation in WM, at least when procedural representations cannot be retrieved from long term memory and need to be reformatted online. The available resources seem to be first deployed for the maintenance of all the task-relevant declarative content, and proceduralization takes place to the extent the system can direct attention to the relevant instruction.

Frequency of prospective use modulates instructed task-set interference

Recent studies have demonstrated that keeping an instructed task set in working memory (WM) for prospective use can interfere with behavior on an intervening task that employs shared stimuli-the prospective task-set-interference effect. One open question is whether people have strategic control over prospective task-set interference based on their expectations of whether task instructions will have to be implemented or recalled. To answer this question, we conducted two experiments that varied the likelihood with which a set of prospective task instructions would have to be implemented or recalled. Based on the hypothesis that participants are able to strategically modulate the manner in which a prospective task set is encoded in WM, we predicted that, as the frequency of implementing task instructions increased, so too would the magnitude of the prospective task-set-interference effect. We found that task instructions held in WM caused significant task-set interference, even in mostly recall conditions, but-crucially-that this interference effect scaled positively with the likelihood of having to implement the prospective set. These data suggest that task instructions are obligatorily encoded as a procedural task set, but that the degree to which this set impinges on ongoing stimulus processing is subject to some strategic control, possibly via modulation of the associations between declarative and procedural WM contents. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).