Timing a week later: The role of long-term memory in temporal preparation

Cerebellar Direct Current Stimulation Reveals the Causal Role of the Cerebellum in Temporal Prediction

Temporal prediction (TP) influences our perception and cognition. The cerebellum could mediate this multi-level ability in a context-dependent manner. We tested whether a modulation of the cerebellar neural activity, induced by transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), changed the TP ability according to the temporal features of the context and the duration of target interval. Fifteen healthy participants received anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS (15 min × 2 mA intensity) over the right cerebellar hemisphere during a TP task. We recorded reaction times (RTs) to a target during the task in two contextual conditions of temporal anticipation: rhythmic (i.e., interstimulus intervals (ISIs) were constant) and single-interval condition (i.e., the estimation of the timing of the target was based on the prior exposure of the train of stimuli). Two ISIs durations were explored: 600 ms (short trials) and 900 ms (long trials). Cathodal tDCS improved the performance during the TP task (shorter RTs) specifically in the rhythmic condition only for the short trials and in the single-interval condition only for the long trials. Our results suggest that the inhibition of cerebellar activity induced a different improvement in the TP ability according to the temporal features of the context. In the rhythmic context, the cerebellum could integrate the temporal estimation with the anticipatory motor responses critically for the short target interval. In the single-interval context, for the long trials, the cerebellum could play a main role in integrating representation of time interval in memory with the elapsed time providing an accurate temporal prediction.

How Does Temporal Blurring Alter Movement Timing?

Subjective uncertainty arises because the estimation of the timing of an event into the future is error prone. This impact of stimulus-bound uncertainty on movement preparation has often been investigated using reaction time tasks where a warning stimulus (WS) predicts the occurrence of a "go" signal. The timing of the "go" signal can be chosen from a particular probability distribution with a given variance or uncertainty. It has been repeatedly shown that reaction times covary with the shape of the used "go" signal distribution. This is interpreted as evidence for temporal preparation. Moreover, the variance of the response time should always increase with the duration of the delay between the WS and the "go" signal. This increasing variance has been interpreted as a consequence of the temporal "blurring" of future events (scalar expectancy). The present paper tested the validity of the temporal "blurring" hypothesis in humans with a simple oculomotor reaction time task where subjective and stimulus-bound uncertainties were increased. Subjective uncertainty about the timing of a "go" signal was increased by lengthening the delay between the WS and the "go" signal. Objective uncertainty was altered by increasing the variance of "go" signal timing. Contrary to temporal blurring hypotheses, the study has shown that increasing the delay between events did not significantly increase movement timing variability. These results suggest that temporal blurring could not be a property of movement timing in an implicit timing context.

On doing multi-act arithmetic: A multitrait-multimethod approach of performance dimensions in integrated multitasking

Here we present a systematic plan to the experimental study of test–retest reliability in the multitasking domain, adopting the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) approach to evaluate the psychometric properties of performance in Düker-type speeded multiple-act mental arithmetic. These form of tasks capacitate the experimental analysis of integrated multi-step processing by combining multiple mental operations in flexible ways in the service of the overarching goal of completing the task. A particular focus was on scoring methodology, particularly measures of response speed variability. To this end, we present data of two experiments with regard to (a) test–retest reliability, (b) between-measures correlational structure, (c) and stability (test–retest practice effects). Finally, we compared participants with high versus low performance variability to assess ability-related differences in measurement precision (typically used as proxy to “simulate” patient populations), which is especially relevant in the applied fields of clinical neuropsychology. The participants performed two classic integrated multi-act arithmetic tasks, combining addition and verification (Exp. 1) and addition and comparison (Exp. 2). The results revealed excellent test–retest reliability for the standard and the variability measures. The analysis of between-measures correlational structure revealed the typical pattern of convergent and discriminant relationships, and also, that absolute response speed variability was highly correlated with average speed (r > 0.85), indicating that these measures mainly deliver redundant information. In contrast, speed-adjusted (relativized) variability revealed discriminant validity being correlated to a much lesser degree with average speed, indicating that this measure delivers additional information not already provided by the speed measure. Furthermore, speed-adjusted variability was virtually unaffected by test–retest practice, which makes this measure interesting in situations with repeated testing.

Change of Variable-Foreperiod Effects within an Experiment: A Bayesian Modeling Approach

The framework of binding and retrieval in action control (BRAC) by Frings et al. (2020) proposed that repetition of any element in the previous trial triggers the retrieval of other elements in the same event file. Consistent with this framework, Los et al. (2014) argued that the temporal relation between the warning signal and the target stimulus on a trial is stored in a distinct memory trace (or, event file). Retrieval of the preceding memory trace, which is triggered by perceiving the same warning signal, leads to sequential foreperiod (SFP) effect. We modeled the data from four experiments using a Bayesian method to investigate whether the SFP effect changes over time. Results of Experiments 1, 3 and 4 support the multiple trace theory of preparation, which predicts an asymmetric sequential foreperiod effect, whereas those of Experiment 2 (extremely short foreperiods) support the repetition priming account by Capizzi et al. (2015). Moreover, the significance of the parameters showed that the asymmetry in Experiments 1 and 3 (non-aging distribution) developed gradually, whereas in Experiment 4 (uniform distribution), this asymmetry was significant from the beginning and did not change over time. Implications of these findings for temporal preparation models and BRAC framework were discussed.

Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account

A warning signal preceding an imperative stimulus by a certain foreperiod can accelerate responses (foreperiod effect). When foreperiod is varied within a block, the foreperiod effect on reaction time (RT) is modulated by both the current and the prior foreperiods. Using a non-aging foreperiod distribution in a simple-reaction task, Capizzi et al. (Cognition, 134, 39-49, 2015) found equal sequential effects for different foreperiods, which they credited to repetition priming. The multiple-trace theory of Los et al. (Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1058, 2014) attributes the slope of the foreperiod-RT function to the foreperiod distribution. We conducted three experiments that examined these predicted relations. Experiment 1 tested Capizzi et al.'s prediction in a choice-reaction task and found an increasing foreperiod-RT function but a larger sequential effect at the shorter foreperiod. Experiment 2 used two distinct short foreperiods with the same foreperiod distribution and found a decreasing foreperiod-RT function. By increasing the difference between the foreperiods used in Experiment 2, Experiment 3 yielded a larger sequential effect overall. The experiments provide evidence that, with a non-aging foreperiod distribution, the variable-foreperiod paradigm yields unequal sequential-effect sizes at the different foreperiods, consistent with the multiple-trace theory but contrary to Capizzi et al.'s repetition-priming account. The foreperiod-RT functions are similar to those of the fixed-foreperiod paradigm, which is not predicted by the multiple trace theory.

Temporal expectancy modulates stimulus-response integration

We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event. If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. Yet the role of foreperiods has so far not been investigated in action control. Thus, we investigated the influence of foreperiod on the integration of action-perception features. Participants worked through a standard distractor-response binding paradigm where two consecutive responses are made towards target letters while distractor letters are present. Responses and/or distractors can repeat or change from first to second display, leading to partial repetition costs when only some features repeat or repetition benefits when all features repeat (the difference constituting distractor-response binding). To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we also introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. We observed that distractor-response binding increased with increasing foreperiod duration, and speculate that this was driven by an increase in motor readiness induced by temporal expectancy.

Implicitly learning when to be ready: From instances to categories

There is growing appreciation for the role of long-term memory in guiding temporal preparation in speeded reaction time tasks. In experiments with variable foreperiods between a warning stimulus (S1) and a target stimulus (S2), preparation is affected by foreperiod distributions experienced in the past, long after the distribution has changed. These effects from memory can shape preparation largely implicitly, outside of participants' awareness. Recent studies have demonstrated the associative nature of memory-guided preparation. When distinct S1s predict different foreperiods, they can trigger differential preparation accordingly. Here, we propose that memory-guided preparation allows for another key feature of learning: the ability to generalize across acquired associations and apply them to novel situations. Participants completed a variable foreperiod task where S1 was a unique image of either a face or a scene on each trial. Images of either category were paired with different distributions with predominantly shorter versus predominantly longer foreperiods. Participants displayed differential preparation to never-before seen images of either category, without being aware of the predictive nature of these categories. They continued doing so in a subsequent Transfer phase, after they had been informed that these contingencies no longer held. A novel rolling regression analysis revealed at a fine timescale how category-guided preparation gradually developed throughout the task, and that explicit information about these contingencies only briefly disrupted memory-guided preparation. These results offer new insights into temporal preparation as the product of a largely implicit process governed by associative learning from past experiences.

Transfer effects in auditory temporal preparation occur using an unfilled but not filled foreperiod

How quickly participants respond to a “go” after a “warning” signal is partly determined by the time between the two signals (the foreperiod) and the distribution of foreperiods. According to Multiple Trace Theory of Temporal Preparation (MTP), participants use memory traces of previous foreperiods to prepare for the upcoming go signal. If the processes underlying temporal preparation reflect general encoding and memory principles, transfer effects (the carryover effect of a previous block’s distribution of foreperiods to the current block) should be observed regardless of the sensory modality in which signals are presented. Despite convincing evidence for transfer effects in the visual domain, only weak evidence for transfer effects has been documented in the auditory domain. Three experiments were conducted to examine whether such differences in results are due to the modality of the stimulus or other procedural factors. In each experiment, two groups of participants were exposed to different foreperiod distributions in the acquisition phase and to the same foreperiod distribution in the transfer phase. Experiment 1 used a choice-reaction time (RT) task, and the warning signal remained on until the go signal, but there was no evidence for transfer effects. Experiments 2 and 3 used a simple- and choice-RT task, respectively, and there was silence between the warning and go signals. Both experiments revealed evidence for transfer effects, which suggests that transfer effects are most evident when there is no auditory stimulation between the warning and go signals.

The warning stimulus as retrieval cue: The role of associative memory in temporal preparation

In a warned reaction time task, the warning stimulus (S1) initiates a process of temporal preparation, which promotes a speeded response to the impending target stimulus (S2). According to the multiple trace theory of temporal preparation (MTP), participants learn the timing of S2 by storing a memory trace on each trial, which contains a temporal profile of the events on that trial. On each new trial, S1 serves as a retrieval cue that implicitly and associatively activates memory traces created on earlier trials, which jointly drive temporal preparation for S2. The idea that S1 assumes this role as a retrieval cue was tested across eight experiments, in which two different S1s were associated with two different distributions of S1-S2 intervals: one with predominantly short and one with predominantly long intervals. Experiments differed regarding the S1 features that made up a pair, ranging from highly distinct (e.g., tone and flash) to more similar (e.g., red and green flash) and verbal (i.e., "short" vs "long"). Exclusively for pairs of highly distinct S1s, the results showed that the S1 cue modified temporal preparation, even in participants who showed no awareness of the contingency. This cueing effect persisted in a subsequent transfer phase, in which the contingency between S1 and the timing of S2 was broken - a fact participants were informed of in advance. Together, these findings support the role of S1 as an implicit retrieval cue, consistent with MTP.

Evidence for short-term, but not long-term, transfer effects in the temporal preparation of auditory stimuli

Starting procedures in racing sports consist of a warning (e.g., "Set") followed by a target (e.g., "Go") signal. During this interval (the foreperiod), athletes engage in temporal preparation whereby they prepare to respond to the target as quickly as possible. Despite a long history, the cognitive mechanisms underlying this process are debated. Recently, it has been suggested that traces of previous temporal durations drive temporal preparation performance rather than the traditional explanation that performance is related to the currently perceived hazard function. Los and colleagues used visual stimuli for the warning and target signals. As racing sports typically rely upon auditory stimuli, we investigated the role of memory on temporal preparation in the auditory domain. Experiment 1 investigated long-term transfer effects. In an acquisition phase, two groups of participants were exposed to different foreperiod distributions. One week later, during a transfer phase, both groups received the same distribution of foreperiods. There was no evidence for transfer effects. Therefore, Experiment 2 examined short-term transfer effects in which acquisition and transfer phases were completed in the same testing session. There was some evidence for transfer effects, but this was limited, suggesting that there may be modality-specific memory differences.