The time course of activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex during top-down attentional control

Abstract

A network of brain regions has been implicated in top-down attentional control, including left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC). The present experiment evaluated predictions of the cascade-of-control model (Banich, 2009), which predicts that during attentionally-demanding tasks, LDLPFC imposes a top-down attentional set which precedes late-stage selection performed by dACC. Furthermore, the cascade-of-control model argues that dACC must increase its activity to compensate when top-down control by LDLPFC is poor. The present study tested these hypotheses using fMRI and dense-array ERP data collected from the same 80 participants in separate sessions. fMRI results guided ERP source modeling to characterize the time course of activity in LDLPFC and dACC. As predicted, dACC activity subsequent to LDLPFC activity distinguished congruent and incongruent conditions on the Stroop task. Furthermore, when LDLPFC activity was low, the level of dACC activity was related to performance outcome. These results demonstrate that dACC responds to attentional demand in a flexible manner that is dependent on the level of LDLPFC activity earlier in a trial. Overall, results were consistent with the temporal course of regional brain function proposed by the cascade-of-control model.

Flexible brain network reconfiguration supporting inhibitory control

“…This finding indicates that dACC became more tightly interconnected with nodes in the same module, which is consistent with evidence suggesting that dACC plays a prominent role in determining whether an error has been made and subsequent engagement of lateral PFC regions (part of the same module) to exert stronger top-down control (13,30,38). Present findings are also in line with the cascade of control model, in which dACC plays a role in late-stage aspects of control (control not previously imposed by lateral PFC) (13,30).…”

“…In particular, we predicted that lateral PFC regions (e.g., BA 9/46) would show increased connectivity with dACC and lateral parietal cortex when demand for inhibitory control was greater, based on prior work by our group suggesting such relationships (30). In addition, computational models suggest that a critical component of inhibitory control is upregulating the strength of the desired response [vs. solely inhibiting processing related to inappropriate responses (31)].…”

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

“…For instance, in the go/no-go task, a larger N2 is typically found on no-go relative to go trials, suggesting that the N2 reflects the successful inhibition of the response (e.g., Bruin et al, 2001;Carriero et al, 2007;Dong et al, 2009;Eimer, 1993;Falkenstein et al, 1999;Kok, 1986). Although the N2 component is observed in go/no-go tasks in which nonselective response inhibition is likely to be involved, it is also found in the Eriksen flanker task (e.g., Heil et al, 2000) and the Stroop task (e.g., Silton et al, 2010), where selective response inhibition may be involved. Thus, the N2 component has been associated with both nonselective and selective response inhibition.…”

Correlation between hemodynamic and electrophysiological signals dissociates neural correlates of conflict detection and resolution in a Stroop task: a simultaneous near-infrared spectroscopy and event-related potential study

“…[4][5][6][7] The PFC has been proven to play a predominant role in cognitive control. 8,9 The PFC implements top-down attention control to bias the neural processing of task-related information and resolve conflict.…”