Periodic Reporting for period 1 - InstrAct (From instructions to actions: characterizing the spatiotemporal neural signatures of instructions following.)
Période du rapport: 2020-01-01 au 2021-12-31
From air traffic control to large surgery teams, some of the most advanced human collaborative achievements largely rely on our ability to successfully give and follow instructions. Given the combination of novelty, speed, complexity and efficiency, significant effort has been devoted to characterize the mechanisms underlying this ability. However, how the human brain rapidly (i.e. in a matter of seconds) transforms the content of instructions into actions is still poorly understood. This project aims at providing a fundamental description of this transformation by combining recently developed behavioral paradigms and cutting edge methodological and analytical tools. This combination is expected to result in a significant step forward in the understanding of instructions following, compared to the state-of-the-art.
This project is especially timely given its relevance to ongoing debates in cognitive neuroscience regarding the structure of cognitive control and working memory systems. InstrAct will also be highly relevant to other disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence, which could benefit from the outcomes of this project to implement human-like, complex collaborative artificial systems, a crucial milestone in these fields.
These are the objectives of InstrAct:
1. To ascertain the degree of declarative and procedural representational formatting in key brain regions during instruction implementation
2. To characterize the temporal profile of proceduralization
3. To resolve task proceduralization in time and space by combining EEG and fMRI data
Conclusions: The overall goal of this proposal was to provide a fundamental understanding about how humans rapidly implement novel instructions. We have completed WP1, which main goal was to apply a recently developed multivariate tracking method to assess the reinstatement of specific representations during a novel instructions task. In particular, we aimed at ascertaining the activate state of declarative and procedural representations in key brain regions. This study revealed a co-activation of both types of representations, but a unique role of procedural representations in supporting efficient behavior. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the early termination of the grant, WP2 and WP3 were not completed.
This project is especially timely given its relevance to ongoing debates in cognitive neuroscience regarding the structure of cognitive control and working memory systems. InstrAct will also be highly relevant to other disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence, which could benefit from the outcomes of this project to implement human-like, complex collaborative artificial systems, a crucial milestone in these fields.
These are the objectives of InstrAct:
1. To ascertain the degree of declarative and procedural representational formatting in key brain regions during instruction implementation
2. To characterize the temporal profile of proceduralization
3. To resolve task proceduralization in time and space by combining EEG and fMRI data
Conclusions: The overall goal of this proposal was to provide a fundamental understanding about how humans rapidly implement novel instructions. We have completed WP1, which main goal was to apply a recently developed multivariate tracking method to assess the reinstatement of specific representations during a novel instructions task. In particular, we aimed at ascertaining the activate state of declarative and procedural representations in key brain regions. This study revealed a co-activation of both types of representations, but a unique role of procedural representations in supporting efficient behavior. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the early termination of the grant, WP2 and WP3 were not completed.
The project has achieved most of its objectives and milestones for the period (considering the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the early termination of the grant), with relatively minor deviations.
The project pursued two general aims: 1) to characterize the process of proceduralization to ascertain whether it entails a transformation of declarative representations or rather mere deeper declarative processing; and 2) To elucidate the dynamics of these emergent action-oriented representations in critical brain regions. Given the delays explained above, we could only achieve the first general aim. Our fMRI study (WP1) reveals that instruction implementation recruits not only declarative but also procedural representations of instructed contents.
In WP1 we had human participants perform an instruction following task inside an MRI scanner. Importantly, our task allowed to tag, within each trial, instructions that were relevant for future behavior and instructions that were irrelevant. To evaluate brain activity during the implementation stage of our task we created canonical templates of procedural and reclarative representations. That is, in two separate tasks, we tried to approximate to process-pure measures of procedural and declarative coding formats. Then, we tracked to what extent these templates were reinstantiated during implementation in the main task. First, we found that templates of the relevant instructions of the trial were reinstantiated to a larger extent than irrelevant ones, suggesting that our tracking procedure was efficient. Second, contrary to a hard interpretation of the serial-coding hypothesis, both declarative and procedural representations seem to explain unique parts of neural activity in relevant brain regions. Thus, it does not seem to the case that only procedural information explains brain activity during the implementation stage, and rather, some declarative information might be needed as well. However, we did find some evidence that suggests a more crucial role of procedural representations. Specifically, the strength of these representations predicted behavioral performance: the more an instruction was coded in a procedural format, the faster and more efficient participants would later on execute that instruction, Importantly, this was not the case for declarative information. We interpret this result in the context of output gating. Similar to the idea of an input gate that limits what information enters working memory, some models propose an additional output gate that determines what information will drive behavior. We believe implementation might be a particular instance of output gating that engages relevant brain regions to transfer relevant content into a state that is optimal for behavior.
The project pursued two general aims: 1) to characterize the process of proceduralization to ascertain whether it entails a transformation of declarative representations or rather mere deeper declarative processing; and 2) To elucidate the dynamics of these emergent action-oriented representations in critical brain regions. Given the delays explained above, we could only achieve the first general aim. Our fMRI study (WP1) reveals that instruction implementation recruits not only declarative but also procedural representations of instructed contents.
In WP1 we had human participants perform an instruction following task inside an MRI scanner. Importantly, our task allowed to tag, within each trial, instructions that were relevant for future behavior and instructions that were irrelevant. To evaluate brain activity during the implementation stage of our task we created canonical templates of procedural and reclarative representations. That is, in two separate tasks, we tried to approximate to process-pure measures of procedural and declarative coding formats. Then, we tracked to what extent these templates were reinstantiated during implementation in the main task. First, we found that templates of the relevant instructions of the trial were reinstantiated to a larger extent than irrelevant ones, suggesting that our tracking procedure was efficient. Second, contrary to a hard interpretation of the serial-coding hypothesis, both declarative and procedural representations seem to explain unique parts of neural activity in relevant brain regions. Thus, it does not seem to the case that only procedural information explains brain activity during the implementation stage, and rather, some declarative information might be needed as well. However, we did find some evidence that suggests a more crucial role of procedural representations. Specifically, the strength of these representations predicted behavioral performance: the more an instruction was coded in a procedural format, the faster and more efficient participants would later on execute that instruction, Importantly, this was not the case for declarative information. We interpret this result in the context of output gating. Similar to the idea of an input gate that limits what information enters working memory, some models propose an additional output gate that determines what information will drive behavior. We believe implementation might be a particular instance of output gating that engages relevant brain regions to transfer relevant content into a state that is optimal for behavior.
This proposal aimed at providing an answer to a fundamental question in instruction implementation. To do so, we combined a tailored behavioral paradigm with cutting-edge analytical tools, namely, a template-tracking approach. Although similar strategies have been used to ascertain the content of declarative and WM contents, they had not been used for the current topic. In contrast with previous studies, our tracking method allowed us to test several hypotheses regarding the representation of declarative and procedural information in key brain regions.
On a organizational level, the action has helped to extend the collaboration network of Ghent University, and, in general, to foster a culture of interactions between European organizations. On a societal level, it has helped to further establish the EU as a key hub in the field of instructions following, and on a larger scale, it has contributed to the excellence of science in the EU.
On a organizational level, the action has helped to extend the collaboration network of Ghent University, and, in general, to foster a culture of interactions between European organizations. On a societal level, it has helped to further establish the EU as a key hub in the field of instructions following, and on a larger scale, it has contributed to the excellence of science in the EU.