Search

• Lateral occipital complex (LOC) retains trial-wise memory precision in visual working memory. • LOC communicates with the prefrontal cortex when working memory load increases. • Neural activity in LOC predicts individual model-based memory precision. The neural mechanisms associated with the limited capacity of working memory (WM) has long been studied, but it is still unclear which neural regions are associated with the precision of visual WM. Here, an orientation recall task for estimating the trial-wise precision of visual WM was performed and then repeated two weeks later in an fMRI scanner. Results showed that activity in frontal and parietal regions during WM maintenance scaled with WM load, but not with the precision of WM (i.e., recall error in radians). Conversely, activity in the lateral occipital complex (LOC) during WM maintenance was not affected by memory load, but rather, correlated with WM precision on a trial-by-trial basis. Moreover, activity in LOC also correlated with the individual participant's precision of WM from a separate behavioral experiment. Interestingly, a region within the prefrontal cortex, the inferior frontal junction (IFJ), exhibited greater functional connectivity with LOC when the WM load increased. Together, our findings provide unique evidence that the LOC supports visual WM precision, while communication between the IFJ and LOC varies based on WM load demands. These results suggest an intriguing possibility that distinct neural mechanisms may be associated with general content (load) or detailed information (precision) of WM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attention can be deployed among external sensory stimuli or internal working memory (WM) representations, and recent primate studies have revealed that these external and internal selections share a common neural basis in the prefrontal cortex (PFC). However, it remains to be elucidated how PFC implements these selections, especially in humans. The present study aimed to further investigate whether PFC responded differentially to the peripheral and central retrospective cues (retro-cues) that induced attention selection among WM representations. To achieve this, we combined magnetoencephalography (MEG, Experiment 1) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS, Experiment 2) with an orientation-recall paradigm. Experiment 1 found that a peripheral retro-cue with 100% reliability had a greater benefit on WM performance than a central retro-cue, while this advantage of peripheral over central cues vanished when the cue reliability dropped to 50% (non-informative). MEG source analysis indicated that the 100% peripheral retro-cue elicited earlier (∼125 ms) PFC responses than the central retro-cue (∼275 ms). Meanwhile, Granger causality analysis showed that PFC had earlier (0–200 ms) top-down signals projecting to the superior parietal lobule (SPL) and the lateral occipital cortex (LOC) after the onset of peripheral retro-cues, while these top-down signals appeared later (300–500 ms) after the onset of central retro-cues. Importantly, PFC activity within this period of 300–500 ms correlated with the peripheral advantage in behavior. Moreover, Experiment 2 applied TMS at different time points to test the causal influence of brain activity on behavior and found that stimulating PFC at 100 ms abolished the behavioral benefit of the peripheral retro-cue, as well as its advantage over the central retro-cue. Taken together, our results suggested that the advantage of peripheral over central retro-cues in the mnemonic domain is realized through faster top-down control from PFC, which challenged traditional opinions that the top-down control of attention on WM required at least 300 ms to appear. The present study highlighted that in addition to the causal role of PFC in attention selection of WM representations, timing was critical as well and faster was better. • Attention can be directed externally or internally, controlled by the prefrontal cortex (PFC). • Working memory (WM) representations and performance can be facilitated by retro-cues. • Peripheral retro-cue in WM (load 2) enhanced WM and activated PFC earlier than central retro-cue. • Early PFC activity causally influenced behavior, confirmed by TMS experiment. • Findings suggest separate processes for attention and WM, with PFC's vital involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated visual working memory (VWM) with a whole-report task, where participants were asked to sequentially recall all the items in an order either chosen by themselves (free recall) or randomly chosen by the computer (forced recall). Comparisons between free and forced recalls helped us understand important but largely neglected aspects of VWM, such as inhomogeneity (different levels of precision) and between-item interference. One unique part of our task was the introduction of a separate item-selection stage before each recall, during which participants located the next item to recall. Their mouse trajectory was recorded and served as a dynamic measure of between-item interference over time. We found a free-recall benefit: the overall precision of all items is higher in free recall than in forced recall. Meanwhile, during item-selection, free recall is associated with faster localization of the target and less interference from the other items in memory. We also found evidence for inhomogeneity and discuss the connection of inhomogeneity and between-item interference to the free-recall benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]