We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural codes for representing stimulus information held in different states of priority in working memory. Human participants (male and female) performed delayed recall for 2 oriented gratings that could appear in any of several locations. Priority status was manipulated by a retrocue, such that one became the prioritized memory item (PMI) and another the unprioritized memory item (UMI). Using inverted encoding models (IEMs), we found that, in early visual cortex, the orientation of the UMI was represented in a neural representation that was rotated relative to the PMI. In intraparietal sulcus (IPS), we observed the analogous effect for the representation of the location of the UMI. Taken together, these results provide evidence for a common remapping mechanism that may be responsible for representing stimulus identity and stimulus context with different levels of priority in working memory.

No abstract

Successful goal-directed behavior often requires continuous sensory processing while simultaneously maintaining task-related information in working memory (WM). Although WM and perception are known to interact, little is known about how their interactions are controlled. Here, we tested the hypothesis that WM perception interactions engage two distinct modes of control – proactive and reactive – in a manner similar to classic conflict-adaptation tasks (e.g. Stroop, flanker, and Simon). Participants performed a delayed recall-of-orientation WM task, plus a standalone visual discrimination-of-orientation task the occurred during the delay period, and with the congruity in orientation between the tasks manipulated. Proactive control was seen in the sensitivity of task performance to the previous trial's congruity (i.e. a Gratton effect). Reactive control was observed in a repulsive serial-dependence produced by incongruent discriminanda. Quantitatively, these effects were explained by parameters from a reinforcement learning-based model that tracks trial-to-trial fluctuations in control demand: reactive control by a phasic control prediction error (control PE), and proactive control by a tonic level of predicted conflict updated each trial by the control PE. Thus, WM-perception interactions may be controlled by the same mechanisms that govern conflict in other domains of cognition, such as response selection.

No abstract