Periodic Reporting for period 2 - CoCoFlex (What makes us cognitively flexible? A new learning perspective)
Período documentado: 2021-11-01 hasta 2023-04-30
Much of human behavior is characterized by the extraordinary ability to quickly reconfigure our mind, and switch between different tasks, often referred to as cognitive flexibility. While most psychologists agree on the kind of behaviors that fall under the term cognitive flexibility, we have only a poor understanding on what drives cognitive flexibility.
When defining cognitive flexibility, its putative underlying processes are often distinguished from other functions of the brain by opposing them to arguably simpler forms of learning. In contrast, this project starts from a perspective, that we and others have pushed forward, where cognitive flexibility is grounded in reinforcement learning and associative learning, and therefore sensitive to the same rules that simpler forms of behavior are subject to. This approach breaks with a traditional view on cognitive flexibility as originating from a vague, independent supervisory system. Instead, it allows us to get a grip on cognitive flexibility and study its neural mechanisms more closely.
The first two objectives of this project are to demonstrate that the processes behind cognitive flexibility can be selectively reinforced by reward and controlled by the context. A third objective is to test the slightly counterintuitive hypothesis that increased neural variability (or "noise") in control regions of the brain is what allows for cognitive flexibility. Finally, we will apply this different way of studying cognitive flexibility to the clinical domain. Autism has been linked to deficits in cognitive flexibility, but studies have shown mixed results. Accordingly, a fourth objective is to further the understanding of the assumed deficits in cognitive flexibility related to autism.
Overall, this project intends to change the current way of thinking about cognitive flexibility, and cognitive control more generally, and to cause a paradigmatic shift in how we go about assessing its neural mechanisms and deficits in clinical conditions like autism.
When defining cognitive flexibility, its putative underlying processes are often distinguished from other functions of the brain by opposing them to arguably simpler forms of learning. In contrast, this project starts from a perspective, that we and others have pushed forward, where cognitive flexibility is grounded in reinforcement learning and associative learning, and therefore sensitive to the same rules that simpler forms of behavior are subject to. This approach breaks with a traditional view on cognitive flexibility as originating from a vague, independent supervisory system. Instead, it allows us to get a grip on cognitive flexibility and study its neural mechanisms more closely.
The first two objectives of this project are to demonstrate that the processes behind cognitive flexibility can be selectively reinforced by reward and controlled by the context. A third objective is to test the slightly counterintuitive hypothesis that increased neural variability (or "noise") in control regions of the brain is what allows for cognitive flexibility. Finally, we will apply this different way of studying cognitive flexibility to the clinical domain. Autism has been linked to deficits in cognitive flexibility, but studies have shown mixed results. Accordingly, a fourth objective is to further the understanding of the assumed deficits in cognitive flexibility related to autism.
Overall, this project intends to change the current way of thinking about cognitive flexibility, and cognitive control more generally, and to cause a paradigmatic shift in how we go about assessing its neural mechanisms and deficits in clinical conditions like autism.
A first objective was to demonstrate the selective reinforcement of cognitive flexibility. We set up several paradigms to address this research question. We found both expected and unexpected effects, allowing us to identify important modulators and boundary conditions. Moreover, this already inspired further experiments into the selective reinforcement of other classical markers of cognitive control such as congruency processing, and model-free versus model-based decision making. We are also testing the effect of different training regimes and task instructions on several markers of cognitive flexibility in experience-based learning.
A second objective was to establish the power of contextual cues in triggering cognitive flexibility. Across different paradigms, we were successful in documenting environmentally triggered adjustments of cognitive flexibility. Importantly, we also show that this learning required more than a one-hour session, explaining why previous studies, that typically rely on the traditional single-session-design, failed to find these. This further inspired research into the environment-specific regulation of learning rates, and environment-specific exploration strategies in vast decision-making environments. Moreover, we are developing a version of the main paradigm for testing in VR, where we believe the immersive environments will be more powerful in learning and triggering environment-specific flexibility.
A third objective was to unravel the role of neural variability in cognitive flexibility. We developed a new paradigm that allows one to study the time-dependent regulation of cognitive flexibility in service of expecting “task transformations”, which we hypothesized to co-occur with increases in voxel-pattern variability. We are currently collecting fMRI data. We also plan to extend the paradigm to EEG, to gain more insights into the dynamic, temporal evolution of this effect. Moreover, this further inspired another research line into the regulation of behavioral variability or “random” behavior.
A fourth and final objective was to develop a new understanding of cognitive flexibility in autism. We ran a large-scale, preregistered correlational study with around 600 typically developing subjects, and another 120 people who indicated to be diagnosed with autism. The study included the main paradigms we developed for the first two objectives. We are still analyzing the data.
A second objective was to establish the power of contextual cues in triggering cognitive flexibility. Across different paradigms, we were successful in documenting environmentally triggered adjustments of cognitive flexibility. Importantly, we also show that this learning required more than a one-hour session, explaining why previous studies, that typically rely on the traditional single-session-design, failed to find these. This further inspired research into the environment-specific regulation of learning rates, and environment-specific exploration strategies in vast decision-making environments. Moreover, we are developing a version of the main paradigm for testing in VR, where we believe the immersive environments will be more powerful in learning and triggering environment-specific flexibility.
A third objective was to unravel the role of neural variability in cognitive flexibility. We developed a new paradigm that allows one to study the time-dependent regulation of cognitive flexibility in service of expecting “task transformations”, which we hypothesized to co-occur with increases in voxel-pattern variability. We are currently collecting fMRI data. We also plan to extend the paradigm to EEG, to gain more insights into the dynamic, temporal evolution of this effect. Moreover, this further inspired another research line into the regulation of behavioral variability or “random” behavior.
A fourth and final objective was to develop a new understanding of cognitive flexibility in autism. We ran a large-scale, preregistered correlational study with around 600 typically developing subjects, and another 120 people who indicated to be diagnosed with autism. The study included the main paradigms we developed for the first two objectives. We are still analyzing the data.
The three first research objectives each resulted in the development of a new behavioral paradigm for testing (the regulation of) cognitive flexibility. We believe that these open new interesting research directions, and down the line could offer valuable alternatives to current approaches on cognitive training. The insights and planned dissemination of the first two objectives are contributing to a larger paradigm shift we are spearheading, together with a handful of other international labs, in the field of cognitive control. Our findings specifically, we believe, have the potential to change the way people think about cognitive training. We are currently also extending the main paradigm on environment-specific cognitive flexibility into a VR environment, in collaboration with a VR lab that also aspires, and might be helpful for, technology transfer for cognitive training.