Cognitive Neurophysiology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine of the TU Dresden, Schubertstraße 42, 01309, Dresden, Germany.
Cognitive Psychology Unit and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Brain Struct Funct. 2018 Sep;223(7):3347-3363. doi: 10.1007/s00429-018-1694-1. Epub 2018 Jun 9.
Advantageous effects of cognitive control are well-known, but cognitive control may also have adverse effects, for example when it suppresses the implicit processing of stimulus-response (S-R) bindings that could benefit task performance. Yet, the neurophysiological and functional neuroanatomical structures associated with adverse effects of cognitive control are poorly understood. We used an extreme group approach to compare individuals who exhibit adverse effects of cognitive control to individuals who do not by combining event-related potentials (ERPs), source localization, time-frequency analysis and network analysis methods. While neurophysiological correlates of cognitive control (i.e. N2, N450, theta power and theta-mediated neuronal network efficiency) and task-set updating (P3) both reflect control demands and implicit information processing, differences in the degree of adverse cognitive control effects are associated with two independent neural mechanisms: Individuals, who show adverse behavioral effects of cognitive control, show reduced small-world properties and thus reduced efficiency in theta-modulated networks when they fail to effectively process implicit information. In contrast to this, individuals who do not display adverse control effects show enhanced task-set updating mechanism when effectively processing implicit information, which is reflected by the P3 ERP component and associated with the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ, BA 40) and medial frontal gyrus (MFG; BA 8). These findings suggest that implicit S-R contingencies, which benefit response selection without cognitive control, are always 'picked up', but may fail to be integrated with task representations to guide response selection. This provides evidence for a neurophysiological and functional neuroanatomical "dual-process" account of adverse cognitive control effects.
认知控制的有利影响是众所周知的，但认知控制也可能产生不利影响，例如当它抑制刺激-反应 (S-R) 结合的内隐处理时，这可能会有益于任务表现。然而，与认知控制的不利影响相关的神经生理和功能神经解剖结构还知之甚少。我们使用极端群体方法，通过结合事件相关电位 (ERP)、源定位、时频分析和网络分析方法，将表现出认知控制不利影响的个体与不表现出认知控制不利影响的个体进行比较。虽然认知控制的神经生理相关性（即 N2、N450、θ功率和θ介导的神经元网络效率）和任务集更新（P3）都反映了控制需求和内隐信息处理，但认知控制不利影响程度的差异与两个独立的神经机制有关：表现出认知控制不利行为影响的个体，当他们不能有效地处理内隐信息时，表现出较小的世界属性，因此在θ调制网络中的效率降低。相比之下，当有效处理内隐信息时，不表现出不良控制效应的个体表现出增强的任务集更新机制，这反映在 P3 ERP 成分上，并与颞顶联合（TPJ，BA 40）和内侧额回（MFG；BA 8）有关。这些发现表明，有益于无认知控制的反应选择的内隐 S-R 关联总是“被接收”，但可能无法与任务表示整合以指导反应选择。这为认知控制不利影响的神经生理和功能神经解剖“双过程”理论提供了证据。
