Interactions Between Rhythmic and Feature Predictions to Create Parallel Time-Content Associations

Interdependence of "What" and "When" in the Brain

From a brain's-eye-view, when a stimulus occurs and what it is are interrelated aspects of interpreting the perceptual world. Yet in practice, the putative perceptual inferences about sensory content and timing are often dichotomized and not investigated as an integrated process. We here argue that neural temporal dynamics can influence what is perceived, and in turn, stimulus content can influence the time at which perception is achieved. This computational principle results from the highly interdependent relationship of what and when in the environment. Both brain processes and perceptual events display strong temporal variability that is not always modeled; we argue that understanding-and, minimally, modeling-this temporal variability is key for theories of how the brain generates unified and consistent neural representations and that we ignore temporal variability in our analysis practice at the peril of both data interpretation and theory-building. Here, we review what and when interactions in the brain, demonstrate via simulations how temporal variability can result in misguided interpretations and conclusions, and outline how to integrate and synthesize what and when in theories and models of brain computation.

Multisensory synchrony of contextual boundaries affects temporal order memory, but not encoding or recognition

We memorize our daily life experiences, which are often multisensory in nature, by segmenting them into distinct event models, in accordance with perceived contextual or situational changes. However, very little is known about how multisensory boundaries affect segmentation, as most studies have focused on unisensory (visual or audio) segmentation. In three experiments, we investigated the effect of multisensory boundaries on segmentation in memory and perception. In Experiment 1, participants encoded lists of pictures while audio and visual contexts changed synchronously or asynchronously. After each list, we tested recognition and temporal associative memory for pictures that were encoded in the same audio-visual context or that crossed a synchronous or an asynchronous multisensory change. We found no effect of multisensory synchrony for recognition memory: synchronous and asynchronous changes similarly impaired recognition for pictures encoded at those changes, compared to pictures encoded further away from those changes. Multisensory synchrony did affect temporal associative memory, which was worse for pictures encoded at synchronous than at asynchronous changes. Follow up experiments showed that this effect was not due to the higher dimensionality of multisensory over unisensory contexts (Experiment 2), nor that it was due to the temporal unpredictability of contextual changes inherent to Experiment 1 (Experiment 3). We argue that participants formed situational expectations through multisensory synchronicity, such that synchronous multisensory changes deviated more strongly from those expectations than asynchronous changes. We discuss our findings in light of supportive and conflicting findings of uni- and multi-sensory segmentation.

No behavioural evidence for rhythmic facilitation of perceptual discrimination

It has been hypothesized that internal oscillations can synchronize (i.e., entrain) to external environmental rhythms, thereby facilitating perception and behaviour. To date, evidence for the link between the phase of neural oscillations and behaviour has been scarce and contradictory; moreover, it remains an open question whether the brain can use this tentative mechanism for active temporal prediction. In our present study, we conducted a series of auditory pitch discrimination tasks with 181 healthy participants in an effort to shed light on the proposed behavioural benefits of rhythmic cueing and entrainment. In the three versions of our task, we observed no perceptual benefit of purported entrainment: targets occurring in-phase with a rhythmic cue provided no perceptual benefits in terms of discrimination accuracy or reaction time when compared with targets occurring out-of-phase or targets occurring randomly, nor did we find performance differences for targets preceded by rhythmic versus random cues. However, we found a surprising effect of cueing frequency on reaction time, in which participants showed faster responses to cue rhythms presented at higher frequencies. We therefore provide no evidence of entrainment, but instead a tentative effect of covert active sensing in which a faster external rhythm leads to a faster communication rate between motor and sensory cortices, allowing for sensory inputs to be sampled earlier in time.

No behavioural evidence for rhythmic facilitation of perceptual discrimination

It has been hypothesized that internal oscillations can synchronize (i.e., entrain) to external environmental rhythms, thereby facilitating perception and behaviour. To date, evidence for the link between the phase of neural oscillations and behaviour has been scarce and contradictory; moreover, it remains an open question whether the brain can use this tentative mechanism for active temporal prediction. In our present study, we conducted a series of auditory pitch discrimination tasks with 181 healthy participants in an effort to shed light on the proposed behavioural benefits of rhythmic cueing and entrainment. In the three versions of our task, we observed no perceptual benefit of purported entrainment: targets occurring in-phase with a rhythmic cue provided no perceptual benefits in terms of discrimination accuracy or reaction time when compared with targets occurring out-of-phase or targets occurring randomly, nor did we find performance differences for targets preceded by rhythmic versus random cues. However, we found a surprising effect of cueing frequency on reaction time, in which participants showed faster responses to cue rhythms presented at higher frequencies. We therefore provide no evidence of entrainment, but instead a tentative effect of covert active sensing in which a faster external rhythm leads to a faster communication rate between motor and sensory cortices, allowing for sensory inputs to be sampled earlier in time.

Hippocampal-striatal functional connectivity supports processing of temporal expectations from associative memory

The hippocampus and dorsal striatum are both associated with temporal processing, but they are thought to play distinct roles. The hippocampus has been reported to contribute to storing temporal structure of events in memory, whereas the striatum contributes to temporal motor preparation and reward anticipation. Here, we asked whether the striatum cooperates with the hippocampus in processing the temporal context of memorized visual associations. In our task, participants were trained to implicitly form temporal expectations for one of two possible time intervals associated to specific cue-target associations, and subsequently were scanned using ultra-high-field 7T functional magnetic resonance imaging. During scanning, learned temporal expectations could be violated when the pairs were presented at either the associated or not-associated time intervals. When temporal expectations were met during testing trials, activity in left and right hippocampal subfields and right putamen decreased, compared to when temporal expectations were not met. Further, psycho-physiological interactions showed that functional connectivity between left hippocampal subfields and caudate decreased when temporal expectations were not met. Our results indicate that the hippocampus and striatum cooperate to process implicit temporal expectation from mnemonic associations. Our findings provide further support for a hippocampal-striatal network in temporal associative processing.