Time is usually conceived of in terms of space: many natural languages refer to time according to a back-to-front axis. Indeed, whereas the past is usually conceived to be “behind us”, the future is considered to be “in front of us.” Despite temporal coding is pivotal for the development of autonoetic consciousness, little is known about the organization of autobiographical memories along this axis. Here we developed a spatial compatibility task (SCT) to test the organization of autobiographical memories along the sagittal plane, using spatiotemporal interference. Twenty-one participants were asked to recall both episodic and semantic autobiographical memories (EAM and SAM, respectively) to be used in the SCT. Then, during the SCT, they were asked to decide whether each event occurred before or after the event presented right before, using a response code that could be compatible with the back-to-front axis (future in front) or not (future at back). We found that performance was significantly worse during the non-compatible condition, especially for EAM. The results are discussed in light of the evidence for spatiotemporal encoding of episodic autobiographical memories, taking into account possible mechanisms explaining compatibility effects.

Objective We investigated how the ability to control whether or not to inhibit an action is affected by the response preparation. Background The ability to control actions is a central skill to properly behave in complex environments. Increased levels of response preparation are associated with reduced response times, but how they directly affect the ability to control actions is not well explored. We investigated how the response preparation affects the ability to control the generation of actions in the context of a stop selective task. Method Participants performed a visuo-motor stop selective task. Results We found that an increased level of response preparation reduced the ability to control actions. In the condition with high preparation, we observed shorter response times and increased probability of wrong responses to a request to stop, compared to a condition with a lower level of preparation. Conclusion We demonstrated that high response preparation hinders action control. Application Understanding the cognitive factors that affect the ability to properly control actions is crucial to develop devices that can be exploited in different contexts such as the aviation, industrial, and military. We demonstrated that subjects’ response preparation is a key factor influencing their ability to flexibly control their reaction to different stimuli. This study offers a suitable paradigm that can be used to investigate which system features in a controlled task promote an optimal balance between response speed and error rate.

Goal-oriented actions often require the coordinated movement of two or more effectors. Sometimes multi-effector movements need to be adjusted according to a continuously changing environment, requiring stopping an effector without interrupting the movement of the others. This form of control has been investigated by the selective Stop Signal Task (SST), requiring the inhibition of an effector of a multicomponent action. This form of selective inhibition has been hypothesized to act through a two-step process, where a temporary global inhibition deactivating all the ongoing motor responses is followed by a restarting process that reactivates only the moving effector. When this form of inhibition takes place, the reaction time (RT) of the moving effector pays the cost of the previous global inhibition. However, it is poorly investigated if and how this cost delays the RT of the effector that was required to be stopped but was erroneously moved (Stop Error trials). Here we measure the Stop Error RT in a group of participants instructed to simultaneously rotate the wrist and lift the foot when a Go Signal occurred, and interrupt both movements (non-selective Stop version) or only one of them (selective Stop version) when a Stop Signal was presented. We presented this task in two experimental conditions to evaluate how different contexts can influence a possible proactive inhibition on the RT of the moving effector in the selective Stop versions. In one context, we provided the foreknowledge of the effector to be inhibited by presenting the same selective or non-selective Stop versions in the same block of trials. In a different context, while providing no foreknowledge of the effector(s) to be stopped, the selective and non-selective Stop versions were intermingled, and the information on the effector to be stopped was delivered at the time of the Stop Signal presentation. We detected a cost in both Correct and Error selective Stop RTs that was influenced by the different task conditions. Results are discussed within the framework of the race model related to the SST, and its relationship with a restart model developed for selective versions of this paradigm.

Interaction with the environment requires us to predict the potential reward that will follow our choices. Rewards could change depending on the context and our behavior adapts accordingly. Previous studies have shown that, depending on reward regimes, actions can be facilitated (i.e., increasing the reward for response) or interfered (i.e., increasing the reward for suppression). Here we studied how the change in reward perspective can influence subjects’ adaptation strategy. Students were asked to perform a modified version of the Stop-Signal task. Specifically, at the beginning of each trial, a Cue Signal informed subjects of the value of the reward they would receive; in one condition, Go Trials were rewarded more than Stop Trials, in another, Stop Trials were rewarded more than Go Trials, and in the last, both trials were rewarded equally. Subjects participated in a virtual competition, and the reward consisted of points to be earned to climb the leaderboard and win (as in a video game contest). The sum of points earned was updated with each trial. After a learning phase in which the three conditions were presented separately, each subject performed 600 trials testing phase in which the three conditions were randomly mixed. Based on the previous studies, we hypothesized that subjects could employ different strategies to perform the task, including modulating inhibition efficiency, adjusting response speed, or employing a constant behavior across contexts. We found that to perform the task, subjects preferentially employed a strategy-related speed of response adjustment, while the duration of the inhibition process did not change significantly across the conditions. The investigation of strategic motor adjustments to reward’s prospect is relevant not only to understanding how action control is typically regulated, but also to work on various groups of patients who exhibit cognitive control deficits, suggesting that the ability to inhibit can be modulated by employing reward prospects as motivational factors.

No abstract