Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor feature binding processes and representations

Abstract

Coherent, voluntary action requires an integrated representation of these actions and their defining features. Although theories delineate how action integration requiring binding between different action features may be accomplished, the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms are largely elusive. The present study examined the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying binding processes in actions. To this end, we conducted EEG recordings and applied standard event‐related potential analyses, temporal EEG signal decomposition and multivariate pattern analyses (MVPA). According to the code occupation account, an overlap between a planned and a to‐be‐performed action impairs performance. The level, to which performance is attenuated depends on the strength of binding of action features. This binding process then determines the representation of them, the so‐called action files. We show that code occupation and bindings between action features specifically modulate processes preceding motor execution as showed by the stimulus‐locked lateralized readiness potential (LRP). Conversely, motor execution processes reflected by the response‐locked LRP were not modulated by action file binding. The temporal decomposition of the EEG signal, further distinguished between action file related processes: the planned response determining code occupation was reflected in general (voluntary) response selection but not in involuntary (response priming‐related) activation. Moreover, MVPA on temporally decomposed neural signals indicated that action files are represented as a continuous chain of activations. Within this chain, inhibitory and response re‐activation patterns can be distinguished. Taken together, the neurophysiological correlates of action file binding suggest that parallel, stimulus‐ and response‐related pre‐motor processes are responsible for the code occupation in the human motor system.

Somatosensory perception–action binding in Tourette syndrome

“…Descriptive statistics regarding response times are given in Table 3 . The interaction of Response × Finger compatibility signifies stimulus–response binding showing that event file binding effects in the somatosensory domain were present in the task used 31 . However, the lack of interaction with the factor Group (F(1,42) = 0.15; p = 0.7; η p 2 < 0.001; = 6.13) shows that stimulus–response binding did not differ between HC and GTS patients.…”

“…This phenomenon, called “partial repetition cost”, indicates that the event file needs to be reconfigured to allow correct responding. The degree of partial repetition costs is an indicator of the strength of event file binding 21 , 23 – 25 , 28 – 31 . Previous studies investigating perception–action binding mainly focused on the visual modality 29 , 31 .…”

“…The degree of partial repetition costs is an indicator of the strength of event file binding 21 , 23 – 25 , 28 – 31 . Previous studies investigating perception–action binding mainly focused on the visual modality 29 , 31 . Given the link between premonitory urges and tics and a number of peculiarities of sensorimotor integration outlined above, it has been proposed that the binding of perceptual and action-related features is increased in GTS patients 20 , 32 .…”

Absence of electroencephalographic evidence of implicit action-effect intentional binding with varying effect probability

“…A number of recent studies (Kleimaker et al 2020;Takacs et al 2020;Takacs et al 2021) have investigated stimulus-response binding with EEG in light of the popular Theory of Event Coding (Hommel et al 2001). One of the main findings of these experiments is that a cluster of activity patterns reflect the intermediate processes linking the stimulus.…”

“…We would therefore expect that situations where an action leads to a predictable effect with high probability, the P2 component would be reduced in amplitude compared to a situation where the action-effect outcome is less predictable. Finally, the P3 component of aERPs have also been investigated in relation to action-effect studies (Vastano et al 2020) and stimulus response studies (Kleimaker et al 2020;Takacs et al 2020;Takacs et al 2021). Therefore, we will also investigate whether the predictability of the outcome tone changes the P3 component.…”