Search

Negated statements require more processing efforts than assertions. However, in certain contexts, repeating negations undergo adaptation, which over time mitigates the effort. Here, we ask whether negations hamper visual processing and whether consecutive repetitions mitigate its influence. We assessed the overall attentional capacity, that is, the available processing resources, and its distribution, the relative weight, quantitatively using the formal Theory of Visual Attention (TVA). We employed a very simple form for negations, binary negations on top of an accuracy-based, TVA-based temporal-order judgment (TOJ) paradigm. Negated instructions, expressing the only alternative to the core supposition, were cognitively demanding, resulting in a loss of attentional capacity in three experiments. The overall attentional capacity recovered gradually but stagnated at a lower level than with assertions, even after many repetitions. Additionally, negations distributed the attention equally between the target and reference stimulus. Repetitions slightly increased the reference stimulus' share of attention. Assertions, on the other hand, shifted the attentional weight toward the target stimulus. Few repetitions slightly decreased the attentional shift toward the target stimulus, many repetitions increased it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negated statements require more processing efforts than assertions. However, in certain contexts, repeating negations undergo adaptation, which over time mitigates the effort. Here, we ask whether negations hamper visual processing and whether consecutive repetitions mitigate its influence. We assessed the overall attentional capacity, that is, the available processing resources, and its distribution, the relative weight, quantitatively using the formal Theory of Visual Attention (TVA). We employed a very simple form for negations, binary negations on top of an accuracy-based, TVA-based temporal-order judgment (TOJ) paradigm. Negated instructions, expressing the only alternative to the core supposition, were cognitively demanding, resulting in a loss of attentional capacity in three experiments. The overall attentional capacity recovered gradually but stagnated at a lower level than with assertions, even after many repetitions. Additionally, negations distributed the attention equally between the target and reference stimulus. Repetitions slightly increased the reference stimulus' share of attention. Assertions, on the other hand, shifted the attentional weight toward the target stimulus. Few repetitions slightly decreased the attentional shift toward the target stimulus, many repetitions increased it.

Action choices are influenced by future and recent past action states. For example, when performing two actions in succession, response times (RTs) to initiate the second action are reduced when the same hand is used. These findings suggest the existence of effector-specific processing for action planning. However, given that each hand is primarily controlled by the contralateral hemisphere, the RT benefit might actually reflect effector-independent, hemisphere-specific rather than effector-specific repetition effects. Here, participants performed two consecutive movements, each with a hand or a foot, in one of two directions. Direction was specified in an egocentric reference frame (inward, outward) or in an allocentric reference frame (left, right). Successive actions were initiated faster when the same limb (e.g., left hand-left hand), but not the other limb of the same body side (e.g., left foot-left hand), executed the second action. The same-limb advantage was evident even when the two movements involved different directions, whether specified egocentrically or allocentrically. Corroborating evidence from computational modeling lends support to the claim that repetition effects in action planning reflect persistent changes in baseline activity within neural populations that encode effector-specific action plans. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Repeated hand use facilitates the initiation of successive actions (repetition effect). This finding has been interpreted as evidence for effector-specific action plans. However, given that each hand is primarily controlled by the contralateral hemisphere, any differences might reflect effector-independent, hemisphere-specific rather than effector-specific processing. We dissociated these alternatives by asking participants to perform successive actions with hands and feet and provide novel evidence that repetition effects in limb use truly reflect effector-specific coding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beyond being essential for long-term motor-skill development, movement repetition has immediate benefits on performance, increasing speed and accuracy of a second execution. While repetition effects have been reported for single reaching movements, it has yet to be determined whether they also occur for movement sequences, and what aspects of sequence production are improved. We addressed these questions in two behavioral experiments using a discrete sequence production (DSP) task in which human volunteers had to perform short sequences of finger movements. In experiment 1, we presented participants with randomly varying sequences and manipulated 1) whether the same sequence was repeated on successive trials and 2) whether participants had to execute the sequence (Go) or not (No-Go). We establish that sequence repetition led to immediate improvements in speed without associated accuracy costs. The largest benefit was observed in the middle part of a sequence, suggesting that sequence repetition facilitated online planning. This claim was further supported by experiment 2, in which we kept a set of sequences fixed throughout the experiment, thus allowing participants to develop sequence-specific learning: once the need for online planning decreased, the benefit of repetition disappeared. Finally, we found that repetition-related improvements only occurred for the trials that had been preceded by sequence production, suggesting that action selection and sequence preplanning may not be sufficient to reap the benefits of repetition. Together, these results show that repetition can enhance representations at the level of movement sequences (rather than of individual movements) and facilitate online planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The brain mechanisms that integrate the separate features of sensory input into a meaningful percept depend upon the prior experience of interaction with the object and differ between categories of objects. Recent studies using representational similarity analysis (RSA) have characterized either the spatial patterns of brain activity for different categories of objects or described how category structure in neuronal representations emerges in time, but never simultaneously. Here we applied a novel, region-based, multivariate pattern classification approach in combination with RSA to magnetoencephalography data to extract activity associated with qualitatively distinct processing stages of visual perception. We asked participants to name what they see whilst viewing bitonal visual stimuli of two categories predominantly shaped by either value-dependent or sensorimotor experience, namely faces and tools, and meaningless images. We aimed to disambiguate the spatiotemporal patterns of brain activity between the meaningful categories and determine which differences in their processing were attributable to either perceptual categorization per se, or later-stage mentalizing-related processes. We have extracted three stages of cortical activity corresponding to lowlevel processing, category-specific feature binding, and supra-categorical processing. All face-specific spatiotemporal patterns were associated with bilateral activation of ventral occipito-temporal areas during the feature binding stage at 140-170 ms. The tool-specific activity was found both within the categorization stage and in a later period not thought to be associated with binding processes. The tool-specific binding-related activity was detected within a 210-220 ms window and was located to the intraparietal sulcus of the left hemisphere. Brain activity common for both meaningful categories started at 250 ms and included widely distributed assemblies within parietal, temporal, and prefrontal regions. Furthermore, we hypothesized and tested whether activity within face and tool-specific binding-related patterns would demonstrate oppositely acting effects following procedural perceptual learning. We found that activity in the ventral, face-specific network increased following the stimuli repetition. In contrast, toolprocessing in the dorsal network adapted by reducing its activity over the repetition period. Altogether, we have demonstrated that activity associated with visual processing of faces and tools during the categorization stage differ in processing timing, brain areas involved, and in their dynamics underlying stimuli learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When learning a new language, we build brain networks to process and represent the acquired words and syntax and integrate these with existing language representations. It is an open question whether the same or different neural mechanisms are involved in learning and processing a novel language compared with the native language(s). Here we investigated the neural repetition effects of repeating known and novel word orders while human subjects were in the early stages of learning a new language. Combining a miniature language with a syntactic priming paradigm, we examined the neural correlates of language learning on-line using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In left inferior frontal gyrus and posterior temporal cortex, the repetition of novel syntactic structures led to repetition enhancement, whereas repetition of known structures resulted in repetition suppression. Additional verb repetition led to an increase in the syntactic repetition enhancement effect in language-related brain regions. Similarly, the repetition of verbs led to repetition enhancement effects in areas related to lexical and semantic processing, an effect that continued to increase in a subset of these regions. Repetition enhancement might reflect a mechanism to build and strengthen a neural network to process novel syntactic structures and lexical items. By contrast, the observed repetition suppression points to overlapping neural mechanisms for native and new language constructions when these have sufficient structural similarities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]