Abstract Complex human cognition arises from the integrated processing of multiple brain systems. However, little is known about how brain systems and their interactions might relate to, or perhaps even explain, human cognitive capacities. Here, we address this gap in knowledge by proposing a mechanistic framework linking frontoparietal system activity, default mode system activity, and the interactions between them, with individual differences in working memory capacity. We show that working memory performance depends on the strength of functional interactions between the frontoparietal and default mode systems. We find that this strength is modulated by the activation of two newly described brain regions, and demonstrate that the functional role of these systems is underpinned by structural white matter. Broadly, our study presents a holistic account of how regional activity, functional connections, and structural linkages together support integrative processing across brain systems in order for the brain to execute a complex cognitive process.
more »
« less
Frontoparietal tDCS Benefits Visual Working Memory in Older Adults With Low Working Memory Capacity
More Like this
-
-
Switching one’s focus of attention between to-be-remembered items in working memory (WM) is critical for cognition, but the mechanisms by which this is accomplished are unclear. A long-term memory (LTM) account suggests that switching attention away from an item, and passively retaining and reactivating such “latent” items back into the focus of attention involves episodic LTM retrieval processes, even for delays of only a few seconds. We tested this hypothesis using a two-item, double-retrocue WM task that requires participants to switch attention away from and reactivate items followed by subsequent LTM tests for reactivated items from the initial WM task (vs. continuously retained or untested control items). We compared performance on these tests between older adults (a population with LTM deficits) and young adults with either full (Experiment 1) or divided (Experiment 2) attention during the WM delay periods. The effects of reactivating latent items, as well as ageing and divided attention, had significant effects on WM performance, but did not interact with or systematically affect subsequent LTM for reactivated versus control items on item-, location-, or associative-recognition memory judgements made with either high or low confidence. Experiment 3 confirmed that these effects did not depend on whether or not young participants were warned about the subsequent LTM tests before performing the WM task. These dissociations between WM and LTM are inconsistent with the LTM account of latent WM; they are more consistent with the dynamic processing model of WM (Current Directions in Psychological Science).more » « less
An official website of the United States government

