Go to the content. | Move to the navigation | Go to the site search | Go to the menu | Contacts | Accessibility

| Create Account

Visalli, Antonino (2018) Bayesian modeling of temporal expectations in the human brain. [Ph.D. thesis]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Preview
PDF Document
18Mb

Abstract (italian or english)

The ability to predict when a relevant event might occur is critical to survive in our dynamic and uncertain environment. This cognitive ability, usually referred to as temporal preparation, allows us to prepare temporally optimized responses to forthcoming stimuli by anticipating their timing: from safely crossing a busy road during rush hours, to timing turn taking in a conversation, to catching something in mid-air, are all examples of how important and ubiquitous temporal preparation is in our everyday life (e.g., Correa, 2010; Coull & Nobre, 2008; Nobre, Correa, & Coull, 2007).
In laboratory settings, temporal preparation has been traditionally investigated, in its implicit form, through the “variable foreperiod paradigm” (see Coull, 2009; Niemi & Näätänen, 1981, for a review). In such a paradigm, the foreperiod is a time interval of variable duration that separates a warning stimulus and a target stimulus requiring a response. What is usually observed with this paradigm is that response times (RTs) reflect the temporal probability of stimulus onset: RTs decrease with increasing probability. This implies that participants learn to use the information implicitly afforded by the passage of time and that related to the temporal probability of the onset of the target stimulus (i.e., hazard rate; Janssen & Shadlen, 2005). In other words, it seems that they are able to use predictive internal models of event timing in order to optimize behaviour.
Despite previous studies have started to investigate which brain areas encode temporal probabilities (i.e., predictive models) to anticipate event onset (e.g., Bueti, Bahrami, Walsh, & Rees, 2010; Cui, Stetson, Montague, & Eagleman, 2009; also see Vallesi et al., 2007), to our knowledge, there is no evidence on how the brain does form and update such predictive models. Based on such premises, the overarching goal of the present PhD project was to pinpoint the neural mechanisms by which predictive models of event timing are dynamically updated. Moreover, given that in real life updating usually occurs in the presence of surprising events (i.e. low probable events under a predictive model), it is challenging to disentangle between updating and surprise (O’Reilly et al, 2013). Therefore, our second and interrelated research goal was to understand whether, and to which extent, it is possible to dissociate between the neural mechanisms specifically involved in updating and those dealing with surprising events that do not require an update of internal models. To accomplish our research goals, we capitalized on both state-of-the-art methodologies [i.e., functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electrophysiology (EEG)] and computational modelling. Specifically, we considered the brain like a Bayesian observer. Indeed, Bayesian frameworks are gaining increasing popularity to explain cognitive brain functions (Friston, 2012). In a nutshell, the construction of computational Bayesian models allows us to quantitatively describe temporal expectations in terms of probability distributions and to capture updating using Bayes’ rule.
In order to accomplish our goals, the present PhD project is composed of three studies. In the first two studies we implemented a version of the foreperiod paradigm in which participants could predict target onsets by estimating their underlying temporal probability distributions. During the task, these distributions changed, hence requiring participants to update their temporal expectations. Furthermore, a simple manipulation of the colors in which the target were presented (cf., O’Reilly et al., 2013) allowed us to independently vary updating and surprise across trials. Then, we constructed a normative Bayesian learner (a computational model adapted from O’Reilly et al., 2013) in order to obtain an estimate of a participant’s temporal expectations on a trial-by-trial basis. In Study 1, trial-by-trial fMRI data acquired during our foreperiod paradigm were correlated with two information theoretical parameters calculated with reference to our Bayesian model: the Kullbach-Leibler divergence (DKL) and the Shannon’s information (IS). These two measures have been previously used to formally describe belief updating and surprise associated with events under a predictive model, respectively (e.g., Baldi & Itti, 2010; Kolossa, Kopp, & Fingscheidt, 2015; O'Reilly et al., 2013; Strange et al., 2005). Our results showed that the fronto-parietal network and the cingulo-opercular network were differentially involved in the updating of temporal expectations and in dealing with surprising events, respectively.
Having successfully validated the use of Bayesian models in our first fMRI study and dissociated between updating and surprise, the next step was to investigate the temporal dynamics of these two processes. Do updating and surprise act on similar or distinct processing stage(s)? What is the time course associated with the two? To address these questions, in Study 2 participants performed our adapted foreperiod task (same task as in Study 1) while their EEG activity was recorded. In this study, we relied on the literature on the P3 (a specific ERP component related to information processing) and the Bayesian brain (e.g., Kopp, 2008; Kopp et al., 2016; Mars et al., 2008; Seer, Lange, Boos, Dengler, & Kopp, 2016). Importantly, however, we also took advantage from the combination of a mass-univariate approach with novel deconvolution methods to explore the entire spatio-temporal pattern of EEG data. This enabled us to extend our analyses beyond the P3 component. Results from study 2 confirmed that surprise and updating can be differentiated also at the electrophysiological level and that updating elicited a more complex pattern than surprise. As regards the P3 in relation to the literature on the Bayesian brain (Kolossa, Fingscheidt, Wessel, & Kopp, 2013; Kolossa et al., 2015; Mars et al., 2008), our findings corroborated the idea that such a component is selectively modulated by surprise and updating.
While in Studies 1 and 2, participants were explicitly encouraged to form and update temporal expectations using the target color, in Study 3 we wanted to make a step further by asking whether the use of a more implicit task structure might influence the construction of the predictive internal model. To that aim, during the foreperiod task designed for the third study, participants were not explicitly informed about the presence of the underlying temporal probability distributions from which target onsets were drawn. In this way, we aimed to investigate behavioural and EEG differences in the way participants learnt to form and updated temporal expectations when changes in the underlying distributions were not explicitly signalled. Critically, we again found that surprise and updating could be differentiated. Moreover, coupled with the results from study 2, we isolated two EEG signatures of the inferential process underlying updating of prior temporal expectations, which responded to both explicit and implicit contextual changes.
Overall, we believe that the results of the present PhD project will further our understanding of the cognitive processes and neural mechanisms that allow us to optimize our temporal preparation abilities.

Abstract (a different language)

Saper anticipare il tempo di occorrenza di un evento è una capacità necessaria alla sopravvivenza. Quest’abilità cognitiva, cui di solito ci si riferisce con il termine di preparazione temporale, ci permette di preparare in maniera temporalmente ottimizzata delle risposte a stimoli imminenti.
Dal punto di vista sperimentale, la preparazione temporale è stata tradizionalmente studiata usando compiti di foreperiod. Con il termine foreperiod s’intende l’intervallo di tempo che separa un segnale di allerta da un target che richiede una risposta. Dai risultati comportamentali di questo compito si osserva di solito che i tempi di risposta riflettono la probabilità a priori di occorrenza del target condizionata allo scorrere del tempo. In altre parole, sembra che le persone abbiano dei modelli predittivi interni di aspettativa temporale che usano per ottimizzare il loro comportamento.
Nonostante studi precedenti hanno ampliamente studiato i meccanismi neurali che utilizzano tali modelli di predizione temporale, non ci sono studi, sulla base delle nostre conoscenze, che abbiano studiato come il cervello forma e aggiorna tali modelli. Su queste premesse, lo scopo generale di questo progetto di dottorato è stato quello di individuare i meccanismi neurali coinvolti nell’updating, cioè aggiornamento, di modelli di predizione temporale. Un secondo, ma strettamente legato, obiettivo è stato quello di distinguere tali processi di updating da quei meccanismi coinvolti nel far fronte a eventi sorprendenti. È da notare, infatti, che l’aggiornamento delle aspettative avviene solitamente di fronte ad eventi poco probabili per il modello, cioè sorprendenti.
Per raggiungere questi obiettivi ci siamo serviti delle tecniche più diffuse nello studio funzionale del cervello, cioè l’elettroencefalografia (EEG) e la risonanza magnetica funzionale (fMRI) utilizzando un approccio di tipo computazionale legato all’ipotesi del cervello bayesiano. Quest’ approccio consiste nell’implementare un modello di osservatore ideale che permetta di rappresentare quantitativamente l’aspettativa temporale in termini di distribuzioni di probabilità.
La seguente dissertazione è composta di tre studi. Nei primi due studi abbiamo utilizzato un compito di foreperiod in cui i partecipanti potevano predire il tempo di occorrenza dei target stimandone la probabilità temporale di occorrenza. Durante il compito, la distribuzione reale da cui venivano estratte le durate di foreperiod, cambiava, e ciò richiedeva ai partecipanti di aggiornare i loro modelli di predizione. Per decorrelare sorpresa e updating, in questi due studi abbiamo utilizzato una manipolazione che segnalava esplicitamente ai partecipanti se un evento sorprendente era utile o no nel predire i futuri eventi.
Nel primo studio, il segnale fMRI acquisito durante il compito è stato correlato a due misure delle teoria dell’informazione calcolate sulla base del nostro modello bayesiano ed utilizzate in precedenza per quantificare l’updating e la sorpresa associate a un evento, la Kullbach Leibler divergence e la Shannon’s information. I nostri risultati hanno mostrato che due network cerebrali di controllo cognitivo, il network fronto-parietale e il network cingolo-opercolare erano differentemente modulati da updating e sorpresa.
Dopo aver validato il nostro modello nel primo studio e aver dissociato updating e sorpresa, il passo successivo è stato quello di studiare le dinamiche temporali di questi due processi. A tale scopo, nel secondo studio, abbiamo condotto uno studio EEG con lo stesso compito di foreperiod. I risultati hanno mostrato che anche a livello di segnale EEG è possibile dissociare updating e sorpresa.
Mentre nei primi due studi i partecipanti erano esplicitamente incoraggiati ad aggiornare le loro aspettative temporali, nel terzo studio (EEG) ci siamo chiesti se l’utilizzo di un compito più implicito potesse influire sui processi di updating. A tal scopo, abbiamo utilizzato un task in cui i cambi di durata dei foreperiod non erano segnalati esplicitamente. Così facendo abbiamo potuto esaminare come i partecipanti aggiornavano le loro aspettative temporali in presenza di cambiamenti nel compito non esplicitamente segnalati. Integrando i due studi EEG, siamo riusciti a isolare due indici elettrofisiologici coinvolti nell’updating temporale in risposta a cambiamenti nel compito sia espliciti che impliciti.

Statistiche Download
EPrint type:Ph.D. thesis
Tutor:Vallesi, Antonino
Ph.D. course:Ciclo 31 > Corsi 31 > SCIENZE PSICOLOGICHE
Data di deposito della tesi:29 November 2018
Anno di Pubblicazione:22 November 2018
Key Words:Temporal expectactions; Bayesian brain; Updating; Surprise; P300; Cognitive control networks
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 11 - Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e psicologiche > M-PSI/02 Psicobiologia e psicologia fisiologica
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Neuroscienze
Codice ID:11493
Depositato il:05 Nov 2019 17:35
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

Andersson, J. L., Skare, S., & Ashburner, J. (2003). How to correct susceptibility distortions in spin-echo echo-planar images: application to diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimage, 20(2), 870-888. Cerca con Google

Ashburner, J., Barnes, G., Chen, C., Daunizeau, J., Flandin, G., Friston, K., . . . Moran, R. (2014). SPM12 manual. Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London, UK. Cerca con Google

Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12-28. Cerca con Google

Baldi, P., & Itti, L. (2010). Of bits and wows: A Bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention. Neural Netw, 23(5), 649-666. Cerca con Google

Barceló, F., Perianez, J. A., & Nyhus, E. (2008). An information theoretical approach to task-switching: evidence from cognitive brain potentials in humans. Front Hum Neurosci, 1, 13. Cerca con Google

Barceló, F., & Cooper, P. S. (2018). An information theory account of late frontoparietal ERP positivities in cognitive control. Psychophysiology, 55(3). Cerca con Google

Barto, A., Mirolli, M., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Novelty or surprise? Front Psychol, 4, 907. Cerca con Google

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823. Cerca con Google

Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Temporal preparation improves temporal resolution: evidence from constant foreperiods. Percept Psychophys, 70(8), 1504-1514. Cerca con Google

Behrens, T. E., Woolrich, M. W., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. (2007). Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nat Neurosci, 10(9), 1214-1221. Cerca con Google

Bennett, D., Murawski, C., & Bode, S. (2015). Single-Trial Event-Related Potential Correlates of Belief Updating. eNeuro, 2(5), ENEURO.0076-15.2015. Cerca con Google

Berchicci, M., Spinelli, D., & Di Russo, F. (2016). New insights into old waves. Matching stimulus- and response-locked ERPs on the same time-window. Biol Psychol, 117, 202-215. Cerca con Google

Bledowski, C., Prvulovic, D., Hoechstetter, K., Scherg, M., Wibral, M., Goebel, R., & Linden, D. E. (2004). Localizing P300 generators in visual target and distractor processing: a combined event-related potential and functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci, 24(42), 9353-9360. Cerca con Google

Brainard, D. H., & Vision, S. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial vision, 10, 433-436. Cerca con Google

Brown, S., van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., de Rover, M., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2012). Functional significance of the emotion-related late positive potential. Front Hum Neurosci, 6. Cerca con Google

Brydges, C. R., & Barceló, F. (2018). Functional Dissociation of Latency-Variable, Stimulus- and Response-Locked Target P3 Sub-components in Task-Switching. Front Hum Neurosci, 12, 60. Cerca con Google

Bueti, D., Bahrami, B., Walsh, V., & Rees, G. (2010). Encoding of temporal probabilities in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(12), 4343-4352. Cerca con Google

Bueti, D., & Macaluso, E. (2010). Auditory temporal expectations modulate activity in visual cortex. Neuroimage, 51(3), 1168-1183. Cerca con Google

Chater, N., & Manning, C. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 335-344. Cerca con Google

Chaumon, M., Bishop, D. V., & Busch, N. A. (2015). A practical guide to the selection of independent components of the electroencephalogram for artifact correction. J Neurosci Methods, 250, 47-63. Cerca con Google

Chiu, Y. C., & Yantis, S. (2009). A domain-independent source of cognitive control for task sets: shifting spatial attention and switching categorization rules. J Neurosci, 29(12), 3930-3938. Cerca con Google

Cocchi, L., Zalesky, A., Fornito, A., & Mattingley, J. B. (2013). Dynamic cooperation and competition between brain systems during cognitive control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(10), 493-501. Cerca con Google

Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature reviews neuroscience, 3(3), 201. Cerca con Google

Correa, A. (2010). Enhancing behavioural performance by visual temporal orienting. Attention and time, 357-370. Cerca con Google

Correa, A., Lupianez, J., Madrid, E., & Tudela, P. (2006). Temporal attention enhances early visual processing: a review and new evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Res, 1076(1), 116-128. Cerca con Google

Cotti, J., Rohenkohl, G., Stokes, M., Nobre, A. C., & Coull, J. T. (2011). Functionally dissociating temporal and motor components of response preparation in left intraparietal sulcus. NeuroImage, 54(2), 1221-30. Cerca con Google

Coull, J. T. (2009). Neural substrates of mounting temporal expectation. PLoS biology, 7(8), e1000166. Cerca con Google

Coull, J. T., Cotti, J., & Vidal, F. (2016). Differential roles for parietal and frontal cortices in fixed versus evolving temporal expectations: Dissociating prior from posterior temporal probabilities with fMRI. Neuroimage, 141, 40-51. Cerca con Google

Coull, J. T., & Nobre, A. C. (1998). Where and when to pay attention: the neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI. J Neurosci, 18(18), 7426-7435. Cerca con Google

Crittenden, B. M., Mitchell, D. J., & Duncan, J. (2016). Task encoding across the multiple demand cortex is consistent with a frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular dual networks distinction. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(23), 6147-6155. Cerca con Google

Crottaz-Herbette, S., & Menon, V. (2006). Where and when the anterior cingulate cortex modulates attentional response: combined fMRI and ERP evidence. J Cogn Neurosci, 18(5), 766-780. Cerca con Google

Davranche, K., Nazarian, B., Vidal, F., & Coull, J. T. (2011). Orienting attention in time activates left intraparietal sulcus for both perceptual and motor task goals. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 23(11), 3318-3330. Cerca con Google

DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M., & Kutas, M. (2011). Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations. Psychophysiology, 48(9), 1203-1207. Cerca con Google

Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods, 134(1), 9-21. Cerca con Google

Di Russo, F., Berchicci, M., Bozzacchi, C., Perri, R., Pitzalis, S., & Spinelli, D. (2017). Beyond the “Bereitschaftspotential”: action preparation behind cognitive functions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 78, 57-81. Cerca con Google

Donchin, E. (1979). Event-related brain potentials: A tool in the study of human information processing. In Evoked brain potentials and behavior (pp. 13-88): Springer. Cerca con Google

Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise!… surprise? Psychophysiology, 18(5), 493-513. Cerca con Google

Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(3), 357-374. Cerca con Google

Dosenbach, N. U., Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2008). A dual-networks architecture of top-down control. Trends Cogn Sci, 12(3), 99-105. Cerca con Google

Doya, K., Ishii, S., Pouget, A., & Rao, R. P. (2007). Bayesian brain: Probabilistic approaches to neural coding: MIT press. Cerca con Google

Duncan, J. (2013). The structure of cognition: attentional episodes in mind and brain. Neuron, 80(1), 35-50. Cerca con Google

Ehinger, B. V., & Dimigen, O. (2018). Unfold: An integrated toolbox for overlap correction, non-linear modeling, and regression-based EEG analysis. bioRxiv 360156. Cerca con Google

Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Res, 1146, 75-84. Cerca con Google

Forder, L., He, X., & Franklin, A. (2017). Colour categories are reflected in sensory stages of colour perception when stimulus issues are resolved. PloS One, 12(5), e0178097. Cerca con Google

Fornito, A., Harrison, B. J., Zalesky, A., & Simons, J. S. (2012). Competitive and cooperative dynamics of large-scale brain functional networks supporting recollection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(31), 12788-12793. Cerca con Google

Freunberger, R., Klimesch, W., Doppelmayr, M., & Holler, Y. (2007). Visual P2 component is related to theta phase-locking. Neurosci Lett, 426(3), 181-186. Cerca con Google

Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 360(1456), 815-836. Cerca con Google

Friston, K. (2012). The history of the future of the Bayesian brain. In Neuroimage (Vol. 62-248, pp. 1230-1233). Cerca con Google

Friston, K., Buechel, C., Fink, G. R., Morris, J., Rolls, E., & Dolan, R. J. (1997). Psychophysiological and Modulatory Interactions in Neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 3(6), 218-229. Cerca con Google

Geisler, W. S. (2011). Contributions of Ideal Observer Theory to Vision Research. Vision Res, 51(7), 771-781. Cerca con Google

Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychological review, 84(3), 279-325. Cerca con Google

Glasser, M. F., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Wilson, J. A., Coalson, T. S., Fischl, B., Andersson, J. L., . . . Jenkinson, M. (2013). The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. Neuroimage, 80, 105-124. Cerca con Google

Gläscher, J., Daw, N., Dayan, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2010). States versus Rewards: Dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron, 66(4), 585-595. Cerca con Google

Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology, 48(12), 1711-1725. Cerca con Google

Halekoh, U., & Højsgaard, S. (2014). A Kenward-Roger Approximation and Parametric Bootstrap Methods for Tests in Linear Mixed Models–The R Package pbkrtest. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(9), 1-32. Cerca con Google

Harrison, L. M., Bestmann, S., Rosa, M. J., Penny, W., & Green, G. G. R. (2011). Time Scales of Representation in the Human Brain: Weighing Past Information to Predict Future Events. Front Hum Neurosci, 5. Cerca con Google

Hayden, B. Y., Nair, A. C., McCoy, A. N., & Platt, M. L. (2008). Posterior cingulate cortex mediates outcome-contingent allocation of behavior. Neuron, 60(1), 19-25. Cerca con Google

Hayden, B. Y., Smith, D. V., & Platt, M. L. (2010). Cognitive control signals in posterior cingulate cortex. Front Hum Neurosci, 4, 223. Cerca con Google

Herbst, S. K., Fiedler, L., & Obleser, J. (2018). Tracking Temporal Hazard in the Human Electroencephalogram Using a Forward Encoding Model. eNeuro, 5(2), ENEURO.0017-18.2018. Cerca con Google

Horovitz, S. G., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (2002). Correlations and dissociations between BOLD signal and P300 amplitude in an auditory oddball task: a parametric approach to combining fMRI and ERP. Magn Reson Imaging, 20(4), 319-325. Cerca con Google

Hyvarinen, A., & Oja, E. (2000). Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Netw, 13(4-5), 411-430. Cerca con Google

Ibrahim, J. G., Chen, M. H., Gwon, Y., & Chen, F. (2015). The Power Prior: Theory and Applications. Stat Med, 34(28), 3724-3749. Cerca con Google

Itti, L., & Baldi, P. (2005). A principled approach to detecting surprising events in video. Paper presented at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005. CVPR 2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on. Cerca con Google

Itti, L., & Baldi, P. (2009). Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision research, 49(10), 1295-1306. Cerca con Google

Janssen, P., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005). A representation of the hazard rate of elapsed time in macaque area LIP. Nat Neurosci, 8(2), 234-241. Cerca con Google

Jenkinson, M., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E., Woolrich, M. W., & Smith, S. M. (2012). FSL. Neuroimage, 62(2), 782-790. Cerca con Google

Jepma, M., Brown, S., Murphy, P. R., Koelewijn, S. C., de Vries, B., van den Maagdenberg, A. M., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2018). Noradrenergic and Cholinergic Modulation of Belief Updating. J Cogn Neurosci, 1-18. Cerca con Google

Jepma, M., Murphy, P. R., Nassar, M. R., Rangel-Gomez, M., Meeter, M., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2016). Catecholaminergic Regulation of Learning Rate in a Dynamic Environment. PLoS Comput Biol, 12(10), e1005171. Cerca con Google

Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annu Rev Psychol, 55, 271-304. Cerca con Google

Kingstone, A. (1992). Combining expectancies. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 44(1), 69-104. Cerca con Google

Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D., Ingling, A., Murray, R., & Broussard, C. (2007). What's new in psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36(14), 1-16. Cerca con Google

Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci, 27(12), 712-719. Cerca con Google

Kobayashi, K., & Hsu, M. (2017). Neural Mechanisms of Updating under Reducible and Irreducible Uncertainty. J Neurosci, 37(29), 6972-6982. Cerca con Google

Kolossa, A., Fingscheidt, T., Wessel, K., & Kopp, B. (2013). A model-based approach to trial-by-trial p300 amplitude fluctuations. Front Hum Neurosci, 6, 359. Cerca con Google

Kolossa, A., Kopp, B., & Fingscheidt, T. (2015). A computational analysis of the neural bases of Bayesian inference. Neuroimage, 106, 222-237. Cerca con Google

Kononowicz, T. W., & van Rijn, H. (2014). Decoupling interval timing and climbing neural activity: a dissociation between CNV and N1P2 amplitudes. J Neurosci, 34(8), 2931-2939. Cerca con Google

Kopp, B. (2008). The P300 component of the event-related brain potential and Bayes’ theorem. Cognitive sciences at the leading edge, 87-96. Cerca con Google

Kopp, B., Seer, C., Lange, F., Kluytmans, A., Kolossa, A., Fingscheidt, T., & Hoijtink, H. (2016). P300 amplitude variations, prior probabilities, and likelihoods: A Bayesian ERP study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(5), 911-928. Cerca con Google

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-20. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Cerca con Google

Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci, 8(4), 355-362. Cerca con Google

Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. Cerca con Google

Leech, R., Braga, R., & Sharp, D. J. (2012). Echoes of the brain within the posterior cingulate cortex. J Neurosci, 32(1), 215-222. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3689-11.2012 Cerca con Google

Mars, R. B., Debener, S., Gladwin, T. E., Harrison, L. M., Haggard, P., Rothwell, J. C., & Bestmann, S. (2008). Trial-by-trial fluctuations in the event-related electroencephalogram reflect dynamic changes in the degree of surprise. J Neurosci, 28(47), 12539-12545. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2925-08.2008 Cerca con Google

Mars, R. B., Jbabdi, S., Sallet, J., O'Reilly, J. X., Croxson, P. L., Olivier, E., . . . Rushworth, M. F. (2011). Diffusion-weighted imaging tractography-based parcellation of the human parietal cortex and comparison with human and macaque resting-state functional connectivity. J Neurosci, 31(11), 4087-4100. Cerca con Google

Mathys, C. D., Lomakina, E. I., Daunizeau, J., Iglesias, S., Brodersen, K. H., Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E. (2014). Uncertainty in perception and the Hierarchical Gaussian Filter. Front Hum Neurosci, 8. Cerca con Google

Mattes, S., & Ulrich, R. (1997). Response force is sensitive to the temporal uncertainty of response stimuli. Percept Psychophys, 59(7), 1089-1097. Cerca con Google

Menon, V. (2015). Salience Network. In A. W. Toga (Ed.), Brain Mapping (pp. 597-611). Waltham: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010). Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function. Brain Struct Funct, 214(5-6), 655-667. Cerca con Google

Mensen, A., & Khatami, R. (2013). Advanced EEG analysis using threshold-free cluster-enhancement and non-parametric statistics. Neuroimage, 67, 111-118. Cerca con Google

Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., & Roivainen, E. (2018). No grammatical gender effect on affective ratings: evidence from Italian and German languages. Cogn Emot, 1-7. doi:10.1080/02699931.2018.1483322 Cerca con Google

Nassar, M. R., Wilson, R. C., Heasly, B., & Gold, J. I. (2010). An approximately Bayesian delta-rule model explains the dynamics of belief updating in a changing environment. J Neurosci, 30(37), 12366-12378. Cerca con Google

Niemi, P., & Näätänen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological bulletin, 89(1), 133. Cerca con Google

Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychol Bull, 131(4), 510-532. Cerca con Google

Nimchinsky, E. A., Gilissen, E., Allman, J. M., Perl, D. P., Erwin, J. M., & Hof, P. R. (1999). A neuronal morphologic type unique to humans and great apes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 96(9), 5268-5273. Cerca con Google

Nobre, A. C., Correa, A., & Coull, J. T. (2007). The hazards of time. Current opinion in neurobiology, 17(4), 465-470. Cerca con Google

O'Connell, R. G., Dockree, P. M., & Kelly, S. P. (2012). A supramodal accumulation-to-bound signal that determines perceptual decisions in humans. Nat Neurosci, 15(12), 1729-1735. Cerca con Google

O'Reilly, J. X., Schuffelgen, U., Cuell, S. F., Behrens, T. E., Mars, R. B., & Rushworth, M. F. (2013). Dissociable effects of surprise and model update in parietal and anterior cingulate cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 110(38), E3660-3669. Cerca con Google

O’Reilly, J. X., & Mars, R. B. (2015). Bayesian models in cognitive neuroscience: A tutorial. In An Introduction to Model-Based Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 179-197): Springer. Cerca con Google

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113. Cerca con Google

Ouyang, G., Sommer, W., & Zhou, C. (2015). A toolbox for residue iteration decomposition (RIDE)--A method for the decomposition, reconstruction, and single trial analysis of event related potentials. J Neurosci Methods, 250, 7-21. Cerca con Google

Pearson, J. M., Heilbronner, S. R., Barack, D. L., Hayden, B. Y., & Platt, M. L. (2011). Posterior cingulate cortex: adapting behavior to a changing world. Trends Cogn Sci, 15(4), 143-151. Cerca con Google

Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial vision, 10(4), 437-442. Cerca con Google

Penny, W. (2012). Bayesian models of brain and behaviour. ISRN Biomathematics, 2012. Cerca con Google

Perrin, F., Pernier, J., Bertrand, O., & Echallier, J. F. (1989). Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 72(2), 184-187. Cerca con Google

Polich, J. (2003). Theoretical Overview of P3a and P3b. In J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change: Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings (pp. 83-98). Boston, MA: Springer US. Cerca con Google

Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol, 109(2), 160-174. Cerca con Google

Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012). Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage, 59(3), 2142-2154. Cerca con Google

R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015. Cerca con Google

Rogers, J. L., Howard, K. I., & Vessey, J. T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups. Psychol Bull, 113(3), 553-565. Cerca con Google

Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm, 15(6), 657-680. Cerca con Google

Schwartenbeck, P., FitzGerald, T. H. B., & Dolan, R. (2016). Neural signals encoding shifts in beliefs. Neuroimage, 125, 578-586. Cerca con Google

Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., Glover, G. H., Kenna, H., . . . Greicius, M. D. (2007). Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci, 27(9), 2349-2356. Cerca con Google

Seer, C., Lange, F., Boos, M., Dengler, R., & Kopp, B. (2016). Prior probabilities modulate cortical surprise responses: a study of event-related potentials. Brain and cognition, 106, 78-89. Cerca con Google

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27, 623-656. Cerca con Google

Smith, N. J., & Kutas, M. (2015). Regression-based estimation of ERP waveforms: I. The rERP framework. Psychophysiology, 52(2), 157-168. Cerca con Google

Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E., Johansen-Berg, H., . . . Matthews, P. M. (2004). Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage, 23 Suppl 1, S208-219. Cerca con Google

Spencer, K. M., Dien, J., & Donchin, E. (2001). Spatiotemporal analysis of the late ERP responses to deviant stimuli. Psychophysiology, 38(2), 343-358. Cerca con Google

Squires, K. C., Wickens, C., Squires, N. K., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. Science, 193(4258), 1142-1146. Cerca con Google

Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., & Hillyard, S. A. (1975). Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 38(4), 387-401. Cerca con Google

Sridharan, D., Levitin, D. J., & Menon, V. (2008). A critical role for the right fronto-insular cortex in switching between central-executive and default-mode networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 105(34), 12569-12574. Cerca con Google

Stern, E. R., Gonzalez, R., Welsh, R. C., & Taylor, S. F. (2010). Updating beliefs for a decision: Neural correlates of uncertainty and underconfidence. J Neurosci, 30(23), 8032-8041. Cerca con Google

Stuss, D. T., Alexander, M. P., Shallice, T., Picton, T. W., Binns, M. A., Macdonald, R., . . . Katz, D. I. (2005). Multiple frontal systems controlling response speed. Neuropsychologia, 43(3), 396-417. Cerca con Google

Sutton, S. (1979). P300--thirteen years later. In Evoked brain potentials and behavior (pp. 107-126): Springer. Cerca con Google

Sutton, S., & Ruchkin, D. S. (1984). The late positive complex. Advances and new problems. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 425, 1-23. Cerca con Google

Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology, 52(8), 997-1009. Cerca con Google

Tomassini, A., Ruge, D., Galea, J. M., Penny, W., & Bestmann, S. (2016). The Role of Dopamine in Temporal Uncertainty. J Cogn Neurosci, 28(1), 96-110. Cerca con Google

Trillenberg, P., Verleger, R., Wascher, E., Wauschkuhn, B., & Wessel, K. (2000). CNV and temporal uncertainty with 'ageing' and 'non-ageing' S1-S2 intervals. Clin Neurophysiol, 111(7), 1216-1226. Cerca con Google

Trivino, M., Correa, A., Arnedo, M., & Lupianez, J. (2010). Temporal orienting deficit after prefrontal damage. Brain, 133(Pt 4), 1173-1185. Cerca con Google

Vallesi, A. (2010). Neuro-anatomical substrates of foreperiod effects. Attention and time, 303-316. Cerca con Google

Vallesi, A., McIntosh, A. R., Shallice, T., & Stuss, D. T. (2009). When time shapes behavior: fMRI evidence of brain correlates of temporal monitoring. J Cogn Neurosci, 21(6), 1116-1126. Cerca con Google

Vallesi, A., McIntosh, A. R., & Stuss, D. T. (2009). Temporal preparation in aging: a functional MRI study. Neuropsychologia, 47(13), 2876-2881. Cerca con Google

Vallesi, A., Mussoni, A., Mondani, M., Budai, R., Skrap, M., & Shallice, T. (2007). The neural basis of temporal preparation: insights from brain tumor patients. Neuropsychologia, 45(12), 2755-2763. Cerca con Google

Vallesi, A., Shallice, T., & Walsh, V. (2007). Role of the prefrontal cortex in the foreperiod effect: TMS evidence for dual mechanisms in temporal preparation. Cereb Cortex, 17(2), 466-474. Cerca con Google

Verleger, R., Grauhan, N., & Smigasiewicz, K. (2016). Is P3 a strategic or a tactical component? Relationships of P3 sub-components to response times in oddball tasks with go, no-go and choice responses. Neuroimage, 143, 223-234. Cerca con Google

Vilares, I., & Kording, K. (2011). Bayesian models: the structure of the world, uncertainty, behavior, and the brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1224(1), 22-39. Cerca con Google

Vossel, S., Mathys, C., Stephan, K. E., & Friston, K. J. (2015). Cortical Coupling Reflects Bayesian Belief Updating in the Deployment of Spatial Attention. J Neurosci, 35(33), 11532-11542. Cerca con Google

Waskom, M. L., Kumaran, D., Gordon, A. M., Rissman, J., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Frontoparietal representations of task context support the flexible control of goal-directed cognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(32), 10743-10755. Cerca con Google

Waskom, M. L., Frank, M. C., & Wagner, A. D. (2017). Adaptive engagement of cognitive control in context-dependent decision making. Cerebral Cortex, 27(2), 1270-1284. Cerca con Google

Wilkinson, G., & Rogers, C. (1973). Symbolic description of factorial models for analysis of variance. Applied Statistics, 392-399. Cerca con Google

Winkler, I., Debener, S., Muller, K. R., & Tangermann, M. (2015). On the influence of high-pass filtering on ICA-based artifact reduction in EEG-ERP. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2015, 4101-4105. Cerca con Google

Wolpert, D. M. (2007). Probabilistic models in human sensorimotor control. Hum Mov Sci, 26(4), 511-524. Cerca con Google

Woodrow, H. (1914). The measurement of attention. The Psychological Monographs, 17(5), i. Cerca con Google

Yu, A. J., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty, neuromodulation, and attention. Neuron, 46(4), 681-692. Cerca con Google

Yuille, A., & Kersten, D. (2006). Vision as Bayesian inference: analysis by synthesis? Trends Cogn Sci, 10(7), 301-308. Cerca con Google

Zeki, S., Watson, J. D., Lueck, C. J., Friston, K. J., Kennard, C., & Frackowiak, R. S. (1991). A direct demonstration of functional specialization in human visual cortex. J Neurosci, 11(3), 641-649. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record