Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Content-Specific Codes of Parametric Vibrotactile Working Memory in Humans

Timo Torsten Schmidt, Yuan-hao Wu and Felix Blankenburg
Journal of Neuroscience 4 October 2017, 37 (40) 9771-9777; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1167-17.2017
Timo Torsten Schmidt
1Neurocomputation and Neuroimaging Unit, Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany,
2Institute of Cognitive Science, Universität Osnabrück, 49090 Osnabrück, Germany, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Timo Torsten Schmidt
Yuan-hao Wu
1Neurocomputation and Neuroimaging Unit, Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany,
3Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Felix Blankenburg
1Neurocomputation and Neuroimaging Unit, Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany,
3Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

To understand how the brain handles mentally represented information flexibly in the absence of sensory stimulation, working memory (WM) studies have been essential. A seminal finding in monkey research is that neurons in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) retain stimulus-specific information when vibrotactile frequencies were memorized. A direct mapping between monkey studies and human research is still controversial. Although oscillatory signatures, in terms of frequency-dependent parametric beta-band modulation, have been observed recently in human EEG studies, the content specificity of these representations in terms of multivariate pattern analysis has not yet been shown. Here, we used fMRI in combination with multivariate classification techniques to determine which brain regions retain information during WM. In a retro-cue delayed-match-to-sample task, human subjects memorized the frequency of vibrotactile stimulation over a 12 s delay phase. Using an assumption-free whole-brain searchlight approach, we tested with support vector regression which brain regions exhibited multivariate parametric WM codes of the maintained frequencies during the WM delay. Interestingly, our analysis revealed an overlap with regions previously identified in monkeys composed of bilateral premotor cortices, supplementary motor area, and the right inferior frontal gyrus as part of the PFC. Therefore, our results establish a link between the WM codes found in monkeys and those in humans and emphasize the importance of the PFC for information maintenance during WM also in humans.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Working memory (WM) research in monkeys has identified a network of regions, including prefrontal regions, to code stimulus-specific information when vibrotactile frequencies are memorized. Here, we performed an fMRI study during which human subjects had to memorize vibratory frequencies in parallel to previous monkey research. Using an assumption-free, whole-brain searchlight decoding approach, we identified for the first time regions in the human brain that exhibit multivariate patterns of activity to code the vibratory frequency parametrically during WM. Our results parallel previous monkey findings and show that the supplementary motor area, premotor, and the right prefrontal cortex are involved in vibrotactile WM coding in humans.

  • mental representation
  • prefrontal cortex
  • support vector regression
  • vibrotactile
  • working memory

Introduction

Flexible handling of mentally represented information is the basis for any higher cognitive process. To investigate how the brain represents mental material in the absence of sensory stimulation, working memory (WM) studies have been essential. For a long time, the dominant view was that major aspects of WM content are maintained in prefrontal regions (Goldman-Rakic, 1995). This view was supported by electrophysiological recordings in monkeys finding that neurons in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) exhibited stimulus-specific firing (Romo et al., 1999). Studies on sensory WM by Romo and colleagues, who explored the retention of vibration frequency of tactile stimuli in nonhuman primates, were particularly influential (Hernández et al., 2000; Romo and Salinas, 2001, 2003a, Romo et al., 2002, 2004). These seminal studies have established direct links between the observed neuronal signals and the actual content that was memorized (Pasternak and Greenlee, 2005), namely, that firing of neurons in the PFC was modulated parametrically depending on the maintained vibration frequency (Romo et al., 1999). Consecutive studies depicted a network of regions exhibiting similar WM codes while controlling for potentially conflating perceptual or decisional processes (Romo and de Lafuente, 2013; Romo et al., 2012). Romo and colleagues were able to show parametric mnemonic representations in secondary somatosensory, medial frontal, and premotor cortices and the PFC (Romo and de Lafuente, 2013; Romo et al., 2012). Likewise, several human oscillatory EEG studies have emphasized the role of the right PFC in maintaining information about the stimulus feature (i.e., vibrotactile frequency; Spitzer and Blankenburg, 2012; Spitzer et al., 2014a). However, it is still unclear whether such codes in humans indeed reflect the WM content.

Noninvasive human brain imaging research has initially been limited to the study of elevated activity during WM delay periods. However, delayed activity cannot dissociate between the representation of WM content and other content-independent functions that assist in retaining and manipulating mental representations (Baddeley, 2012; Riggall and Postle, 2012; Sreenivasan et al., 2014a; D'Esposito and Postle, 2015). Multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA) for fMRI has recently received substantial attention in WM research because this approach allows patterns of local activity to be related directly to particular WM contents (Norman et al., 2006; Haynes, 2015; Lee and Baker, 2016; Christophel et al., 2017) and therefore to identify brain regions that code specific types of mental content. Controversially, these MVPA studies largely failed to find stimulus-specific activity in the PFC (Riley and Constantinidis, 2016). Instead, they suggest sensory and parietal regions to exhibit stimulus-specific activation (Lee and Baker, 2016), favoring sensory recruitment models of WM (Pasternak and Greenlee, 2005). Therefore, the view of the human PFC's function for WM has been reevaluated. It remains controversial if, or under which conditions, the PFC exhibits stimulus-specific codes (D'Esposito and Postle, 2015; Ester et al., 2015; Postle, 2015; Lee and Baker, 2016; Riley and Constantinidis, 2016).

Meanwhile, evidence has accumulated that different types of information are coded in different brain regions depending on their degree of abstraction (Christophel et al., 2017). Vibratory frequencies are not thought to be mere low-level sensory stimulus features but are considered as “analog properties” together with stimulus features such as intensity or duration. Most recent studies focused on sensory aspects of WM and mainly fostered sensory recruitment models of WM (Sreenivasan et al., 2014). Research on such more abstract (analog) features has been limited.

Based on the monkey work of Romo and colleagues (Romo and de Lafuente, 2013), we sought to investigate whether similar regions in the human brain also exhibit activation patterns to which MVPA is sensitive. To test which brain regions parametrically represent vibratory frequency, we applied a searchlight approach using support vector regression (Kriegeskorte et al., 2006; Kahnt et al., 2011) in a human version of the vibrotactile WM task. Crucially, this approach does not make any a priori assumptions on the localization of such representational codes.

Materials and Methods

Participants

All subjects (N = 24) were neurologically intact and right-handed, as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) (Oldfield, 1971). A total of N = 22 subjects were included in the analysis (age: 26.46 ± 3.38 years, 16 female, EHI: 0.87 ± 0.15) because two subjects were excluded due to excessive head motion (>9 mm). All participants provided written informed consent for the procedure in accordance with protocols approved by the local ethics committee of Freie Universität Berlin.

Experimental design

We applied a retro-cue WM paradigm in which the presentation of two vibrotactile sample frequencies was followed by a visual cue indicating which of the two frequencies had to be memorized during a subsequent delay period (Fig. 1). Subjects performed a two-alternative forced choice task after a delay of 12 s to indicate which of two test stimuli was identical to the memorized sample. Responses were given via right middle and index finger button presses and left/right response mapping was randomized across subjects. Vibrotactile stimuli were delivered to the left index finger using a 16-dot piezoelectric Braille-like display (4 × 4 matrix with 2.5 mm spacing) controlled by a programmable stimulator (QuaeroSys, St. Johann, Germany).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

WM task for vibrotactile frequency stimuli. A, The stimulus set was composed of four vibratory frequencies of 10, 22, 34, and 46 Hz. Vibrotactile stimuli were presented via a 4 × 4 pin Braille-like display to the left index finger. B, Delayed-match-to-sample paradigm was applied where two vibrotactile sample stimuli and a mask stimulus were presented consecutively to the left index finger. A visual retro-cue indicated which of the sample frequencies had to be memorized during a subsequent 12 s delay period. After this delay, subjects performed a two-alternative forced choice on two consecutively presented target stimuli. One stimulus was identical to the memorized stimulus and the other was a foil (randomized order). Subjects responded with right hand button presses to indicate which of the two target stimuli was identical to their WM content. Beta estimates were derived from a FIR model for each 2 s time bin of the delay phase and entered into independent decoding analyses. Prediction accuracy maps from the eight searchlight SVR analyses and all subjects were entered into a second-level analysis to test for above-chance decoding using a t-contrast across the six WM delay time bins.

The set of vibrotactile sample stimuli contained four frequencies: 10, 22, 34, and 46 Hz (Fig. 1). All 16 pins of the Braille-like display vibrated with equal amplitude for 600 ms with smoothed onsets and offsets. One of the test stimuli matched the sample stimulus' frequency, whereas the foil stimulus was higher or lower in 50% of the trials, respectively. To achieve equal difficulty in each trial, we adjusted the frequency of the foil following the Weber–Fechner law (logarithmic relation between stimulus and perception; Fechner, 1966) anchored at 28 + 9 Hz, resulting in 7.6 and 13.2 Hz for the 10 Hz stimulus, 16.6 and 29.1 Hz for the 22 Hz stimulus, 25.7 and 44.9 Hz for the 34 Hz stimulus, and 34.8 and 60.8 Hz for the 46 Hz stimulus. The mask stimulus was composed of pins vibrating at all four sample frequencies and 180° phase-shifted equivalents and was presented for 500 ms with smoothed onsets and offsets.

Each experimental run consisted of 48 trials with a 12 s WM delay, supplemented by 8 catch trials with delays of 4 or 8 s to ensure sustained WM throughout the retention period. Each of six stimulus pairs was presented equally often in a balanced stimulus order, in which each of the four samples was memorized 12 times. Subjects were familiarized with the task by completing 1 or 2 practice runs outside of the scanner 1–5 d before the fMRI experiment.

fMRI data acquisition and preprocessing

fMRI data were acquired in 4 runs of 20 min on a 3 T scanner (TIM, TRIO, Siemens) at the MRI facility of the Freie Universtät, Berlin. For each run, 600 functional images were acquired (T2*-weighted gradient-echo EPI: 37 slices; interleaved order; 20% gap; whole brain; TR = 2000 ms; TE = 30 ms; 3 × 3 × 3 mm3 voxel; flip angle = 90°; 64 × 64 matrix). In addition, structural MRI data were acquired (MPRAGE, 176 sagittal slices, TR = 1900 ms, TE = 2.52 ms, 1 × 1 × 1 mm3 voxel).

Trial onsets were time locked to the functional images. This approach allows a TR-wise analysis of the 12 s WM phase in six consecutive functional images, as applied previously in the study of visual short-term memory (Christophel et al., 2012).

Statistical analysis

Time-resolved searchlight decoding of parametric multivariate frequency representations.

To preserve the spatiotemporal structure of the fMRI signal, no smoothing, normalization, or slice-time correction was performed before classification and preprocessing was limited to spatial realignment. fMRI data processing was performed using SPM8 (Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute for Neurology, University College London). Finite impulse response (FIR) models were used to obtain runwise beta estimates for each 2 s time bin of the WM delay (to display time courses, an additional 2 s time bin before and after the WM delay was modeled). High-pass filtered data (cutoff 192 s) were included in a model with a total of 132 beta estimates (4 stimuli × 8 time bins × 4 runs + 4 constants). All trials of the experiment except the catch trials were modeled to avoid any potential biases from the exclusion of trials. As control analysis, the identical decoding approach was performed with beta estimates from a model containing only correct trials and revealed virtually identical results.

To identify where in the brain information about the memorized vibratory frequency was encoded, we applied a time-resolved multivariate decoding analysis using a support vector regression (SVR) model, which has been described previously (Kahnt et al., 2011). This approach allows testing for local multivariate representations (activation patterns of voxels) that code the vibratory frequency maintained during WM. Compared with classic support vector machine approaches, SVR does not only distinguish between two classes of stimuli. Instead, an SVR model is trained to predict the value of a continuous variable, here vibratory frequency, based on a multivariate data vector. This is similar to a univariate regression approach, in which the prediction of a dependent variable is only based on one independent variable. In SVR, a data vector with multiple independent variables (activation pattern of voxels) is used to predict a single dependent variable (the maintained vibratory frequency).

All decoding analyses were performed using The Decoding Toolbox (TDT) (Hebart et al., 2015), which provides an interface to apply the computational routines of LIBSVM (Chang and Lin, 2011) and LIBLINEAR (Fan et al., 2008) to neuroimaging data. Crucially, we did not limit our analysis by assumptions on where in the brain local activation patterns relate to WM content. Instead, we applied a searchlight analysis (Kriegeskorte et al., 2006) in which a spherical volume of interest is moved step-by step (voxel-by-voxel) through the entire brain. In each searchlight step, a SVR model is trained and tested on data extracted from a local sphere of voxels. Thereby, 3-dimensional prediction accuracy maps for the whole brain are derived for each experimental subject. Consecutively, these maps allow group-level statistical testing to identify those regions that exhibit above-chance predictions across subjects and thus, maintain information on the memorized vibratory frequency.

The subject-level decoding analysis was performed using a leave-one-out cross-validation scheme in combination with an SVR kernel (linear kernel and constant regularization parameter of c = 1). Independent whole-brain searchlight decoding analyses were performed for each time bin. Beta estimates of each of the eight time bins were first z-scaled (normalized) across the samples for each voxel, as implemented in TDT. In each searchlight step, z-scaled beta estimates of voxels in a four-voxel radius sphere were extracted from each of the four maps corresponding to the four vibratory frequencies. Next, z-scaled beta estimates were forwarded to a fourfold cross-validation scheme in which data from three of the four runs are used to “train” the SVR. This SVR is then used to predict values of vibratory frequency based on the independent fourth run's data. To make our data comparable to previous reports, we used as a “test” measure the prediction accuracy, defined as the Fisher's z-transformed correlation coefficient between the predicted value levels and the actual value levels of the test dataset (Kahnt et al., 2011) (in TDT: “zcorr”). The center of the searchlight was moved voxelwise through the brain and prediction accuracy values were saved in the corresponding whole-brain accuracy maps. In this way, we gained a prediction accuracy map per subject reflecting which brain regions code the value of the vibratory frequency in a multivariate way, which is considered the multivariate pendant of a parametric code (Kahnt et al., 2011). This analysis yielded eight accuracy maps per subject, corresponding to the six timebins spanning the WM interval and one volume before and after it (Fig. 1).

Accuracy maps were normalized to MNI space using unified segmentation (as implemented in SPM8) and smoothed with a 3 mm full-width half-maximum kernel. These were entered consecutively into a flexible factorial second-level design (repeated measures) and a t-contrast for the mean of the six WM time bins against zero was computed. Voxels with above-chance prediction accuracies are reported at a threshold of p < 0.05 family-wise error (FWE) corrected for multiple comparisons and displayed with a cluster extent threshold of 35 voxels. All reported coordinates are in MNI space. The SPM anatomy toolbox was used to establish cytoarchitectonical references (Eickhoff et al., 2007).

Control analysis: decoding the nonmemorized stimulus.

As a control analysis, we tested for above-chance prediction accuracy for the nonmemorized stimulus. New FIR models were estimated, in which the four sets of FIR regressors modeled those trials in which a particular stimulus was presented but not memorized. Therefore, each beta image was estimated with equal amounts of data (modeling the same amount of trials) as in the original analysis. Beta images were entered into an identical SVR searchlight and second-level analysis as in the main analysis. No clusters with above-chance prediction accuracies were found.

Control analysis: label permutation tests.

To determine the prediction accuracy of an SVR analysis, the beta estimates within a searchlight volume for all four ordered stimulus conditions are entered into a SVR model. A high prediction accuracy is only expected if the activation patterns in a given region represent this order of the four frequencies. To test for the specificity of our analysis, we performed exhaustive whole-brain SVR searchlight analyses for all possible permutations of frequency labels. To this end, we determined for all possible permutations the distance from the rank order calculated as the sum of absolute difference of adjacent ranks (e.g., the linear order of 10, 22, 34, 46 Hz has a distance of ranks of sum(|1 − 2| + |2 − 3| + |3 − 4|) = 3 and the permutation 22, 10, 34, 46 Hz corresponds to the sum(|2 − 1| + |1 − 3| + |3 − 4|) = 4, resulting in a difference of 1 from the linear order). Because rank order is symmetric, the permutation analyses span 12 instead of 24 possible permutations congregated into four classes of distances from the linear order. We extracted the prediction accuracies from the group peak voxels of the original analysis. Figure 2C presents averaged prediction accuracies for the four groups of distances from the linear order.

For a statistical assessment, we tested for each time bin whether an increase in ordering correlated with an increase in prediction accuracy. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for each time bin and report significant effects at p < 0.05 (Figure 2C).

Results

Behavioral performance

Subjects (N = 22) successfully memorized the relevant information in the demanding task, as indicated by the 62 ± 4% (mean ± SD) correct responses over 4 fMRI runs. As expected, performance was better for the second (64.5 ± 5%) than for the first (60 ± 7%) presented stimulus (paired t-test t(21) = −2.65, p = 0.015), which was accounted for by a counterbalanced stimulus presentation.

Multivariate mapping of regions that code the content of WM

To test which brain regions exhibit a WM code for vibratory frequency, we conducted a time-resolved whole-brain SVR analysis. We applied an SVR approach to test in which regions information on the order of increasing frequencies can be found by testing where in the brain decoding performance exceeded chance level. We computed a t-contrast of prediction accuracy versus zero across the WM delay period within a second-level flexible factorial design. After accounting for multiple comparisons with a conservative thresholding of p < 0.05 and FWE correction, we identified five clusters of above chance decoding that match with reports from monkey research: bilateral dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC), a cluster in the supplementary motor area/cingulate cortex (SMA/CC), and a cluster in the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), as displayed in Figure 2A and Table 1.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Brain regions exhibiting a WM code for the memorized vibratory frequency. A, Regions with above-chance prediction accuracy across the WM delay period revealed by a t-contrast displayed at p < 0.05, FWE corrected. This network of regions overlaps with areas previously identified in nonhuman primates (see also Table 1) and is constituted of left and right dorsal PMC (dPMC), right IFG (rIFG; 54.1% in right Area 44 according to the anatomy toolbox; Eickhoff et al., 2005, 2007), and a cluster in the SMA/CC. B, Time courses of prediction accuracy through the WM delay phase for the peak voxel of the five clusters depicted in A (mean ± SEM). Time courses of the control analysis decoding the nonmemorized stimulus are presented in gray and do not show above-chance prediction accuracies throughout the delay phase. C, Results of permutation testing in which the same SVR analysis was performed with permuted frequency labels of the data. The divergence of the permutations from the order of 10, 22, 34, and 46 Hz is expressed as difference in rank order (see “Materials and Methods”). As expected if the order of frequencies determines the performance of the SVR then a decrease in the order of frequency labels resulted in decreased prediction accuracy. This analysis thereby demonstrates that it is indeed the linear order of memorized frequencies that constitutes the basis for high prediction accuracies in these regions. Bars with asterisk indicate a significant correlation of order and prediction accuracy for p < 0.05.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Regions identified to exhibit above-chance prediction accuracy across the WM delay period

As a control analysis, the study design allowed us to perform an identical MVPA for the noncued stimulus because two sample stimuli were presented on each trial and pairs of stimuli were balanced (Christophel et al., 2012). Decoding of the nonmemorized stimulus did not reveal any significant clusters of voxels, demonstrating the specificity of the main analysis.

To test for the specificity of the linear ordering of stimuli with the applied SVR approach, we performed permutation tests. To this end, we relabeled the training and test data with all possible permutations of frequency labels. If the order of frequencies were crucial for the SVR's performance, then one would expect increased prediction accuracies with increasing order. We particularly expected this effect during the WM delay period, but not before or after it. The time courses for all four types of permutations across the delay period are plotted in Figure 2C. Note that completely unordered labeling leads to chance performance of the SVR throughout the entire WM period. With increased order, the prediction accuracy increased for all identified regions across the delay period. As expected from the dynamics of the BOLD response, we found that this effect peaked between 4 and 8 s after the WM onset.

In addition to the multivariate analysis, we performed a classic general linear model analysis and tested for univariate parametric modulations during the WM delay phase, which did not reveal any significant voxels (p < 0.001, uncorrected). This suggests that it is the combination of multiple voxels, and thus, distributed neuronal populations, that code for the vibratory frequency rather than an overall parametrically increased activity throughout voxels in the identified clusters.

Discussion

Studies in nonhuman primates (Romo et al., 2012) have identified a network of brain regions where neurons exhibit firing behaviors that are parametrically modulated by the maintained vibrotactile frequency. In a series of EEG experiments, Spitzer and coworkers extended this work to humans by showing that, consistent with the monkey reports, the retention of vibration frequency induces a content-specific parametric beta-band modulation during delay periods, which was source-localized to the right PFC (Spitzer and Blankenburg, 2012; Spitzer et al., 2014a). However, until now, the mapping of brain regions that code vibrotactile frequency in the form of multivariate patterns during human WM has been lacking. Here, we used a multivariate regression approach to test which brain regions exhibit specific patterns of activation for maintained vibratory frequencies. The applied SVR approach can be considered as the multivariate equivalent of univariate tests for parametric modulations; that is, a classifier is trained to predict a value (here: the frequency) instead of a class label (Fan et al., 2008; Kahnt et al., 2011; Hebart et al., 2015). Therefore, the order of frequencies needs to be represented in a region to yield above-chance decoding results. With a whole-brain searchlight approach, testing within the entire brain for such local content-specific codes, we found that the bilateral premotor cortices, medial frontal regions, and right IFG code frequency-specific information. Our control analyses proved the specificity of these results because it was not possible to detect information on the nonmemorized stimuli and because permutation tests showed that it was indeed the ordering of the frequencies that enabled to decode information from these regions.

Interestingly, the identified network overlaps with brain regions reported in Romo and colleagues' monkey research (Romo and de Lafuente, 2013; Romo et al., 2012), as well as with those in the human EEG reports (Spitzer and Blankenburg, 2012; Spitzer et al., 2014a). Here, we extend these findings by showing for the first time that the right PFC also codes multivariate content-specific stimulus information.

In parallel to the monkey data, WM content was not limited to a single brain region; rather, a network of regions was identified. It is reasonable to assume that the brain represents mental content depending on task demands in distributed cortical networks, which can also exhibit different types of codes (Schlegel et al., 2013; Larocque et al., 2014; Lewis-Peacock et al., 2015; Postle, 2015; Lee and Baker, 2016; Christophel et al., 2017). In addition to the PFC, our analysis revealed that the bilateral dorsal premotor cortices and supplementary motor regions (Romo and Salinas, 2003; Hernández et al., 2010; Romo and de Lafuente, 2013; Romo et al., 2012) also exhibit these codes. Dorsal premotor cortices have been indicated to contribute to rehearsal processes (Fegen et al., 2015), whereas details on the mechanisms underlying rehearsal or refreshment of sensory contents (Chun and Johnson, 2011) are still relatively unclear (Baddeley, 2012). Our study shows that these regions exhibit a parametric representation of the WM content. Even though this is consistent with the monkey reports, a direct mapping between monkey and human anatomy remains speculative until future studies provide more direct evidence for these regions' functional roles. Although our study provides a first link for the apparent gap between unit-level recordings and fMRI-based classification approaches, MVPA studies are limited in their ability to identify a specific coding schema. They also allow us to test which regions code WM information but cannot resolve the nature of the code as such.

Our findings are in contrast to several recent WM MVPA studies. Most of these studies have argued for sensory recruitment models because they found content-specific codes predominantly in sensory and posterior regions (Pasternak and Greenlee, 2005; Sreenivasan et al., 2014; Riley and Constantinidis, 2016). Similarly, early monkey research on tactile WM supported the notion that sensory regions are predominantly recruited to represent WM content (Zhou and Fuster, 1996, 2000). This view aligns with the famous WM model by Alan Baddeley (Baddeley, 2012), which is based on the idea of a visuospatial sketchpad, which is now often equated with sensory regions that are supposed to act as a kind of whiteboard on which mental content is drawn (Pasternak and Greenlee, 2005). In addition to WM studies, research on mental imagery also builds heavily on the idea that activity in sensory regions represents the content of mental images (Kosslyn, 2005; Tong, 2013). Indeed, it has been demonstrated that primary somatosensory cortex is recruited for tactile imagery (Schmidt et al., 2014).

On the contrary, frontal and prefrontal regions are well documented to activate in WM studies across different modalities, including tactile WM (Preuschhof et al., 2006). However, these regions are most often considered to fulfill supporting, top-down functions rather than to represent WM content (D'Esposito and Postle, 2015; Myers et al., 2017). With the exception of studies on vibrotactile frequency representations, only a few fMRI studies have revealed prefrontal WM codes that reflect aspects of the WM content (Lee et al., 2013; Ester et al., 2015).

One interpretation of these conflicting findings might be that different tasks require various types of codes. Visual WM studies mostly necessitate mentally representing very precise visuospatial stimulus features such as orientation (Albers et al., 2013), position (Jerde et al., 2012), motion direction (Emrich et al., 2013; Christophel and Haynes, 2014), or the layout of a stimulus (Christophel et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013). These studies convincingly demonstrate that such low-level or sensory-like features are maintained in brain regions which also deal with such type of information during perception. Therefore, Christophel and coworkers recently suggested that it might be the level of “abstraction” of the WM content that determines the network of regions coding it (Christophel et al., 2017). Although primary sensory cortices deal with low-level sensory-like material, regions higher up in the cortical hierarchy, such as the PFC, might process more abstract stimulus features. This view resonates well with evidence that the right PFC processes nonverbal quantitative types of information (Nieder and Dehaene, 2009) and the left lateral PFC, particularly BA44, is well known for its pivotal role in language processing. In monkeys, the right PFC has also been associated with codes for size/length/quantity or numerosity (Nieder and Dehaene, 2009; Nieder, 2013). These magnitude-related stimulus properties are considered to be represented independently of sensory aspects (Walsh, 2003) and human fMRI and EEG studies also associate them with the PFC (Pinel et al., 2004; Nieder and Dehaene, 2009; Spitzer et al., 2014b, 2014c). Consistent with this reasoning, the maintenance of vibrotactile frequency might be considered a representation of an abstract, magnitude-like representation despite a low-level stimulus feature, a type of code for hierarchically higher brain regions such as the PFC. Even though this idea is appealing and in accordance with our data, future research has to provide evidence for it by dissecting different types of information and codes, as well as their functional contribution to goal-directed purposeful behavior and decision making (Romo et al., 2012), including other modalities.

Conclusion

Our study found the right PFC, SMA/CC, and bilateral dPMC to contain multivariate codes of retained vibratory frequencies during human WM. These codes represented the parametric order of the memorized frequencies and the identified network overlapped with previous monkey studies. Future studies will elicit what types of WM contents are represented differentially across species and which cellular mechanisms can be translated more directly between them. For this endeavor, it is crucial to establish links between different observational levels in neuroscience. The bridges between monkey and human data in the study of WM are rare. Our results allow initial new perspectives to unite the different lines of literature using distinct methodologies.

Footnotes

  • T.T.S. was supported by the Research Training Group (Grant GRK 1589/2, Sensory Computation in Neural Systems, by the German Research Foundation, DFG).

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Timo Torsten Schmidt, Department of Education and Psychology, Neurocomputation and Neuroimaging Unit, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany. timoschm{at}uos.de

References

  1. ↵
    1. Albers AM,
    2. Kok P,
    3. Toni I,
    4. Dijkerman HC,
    5. de Lange FP
    (2013) Shared representations for working memory and mental imagery in early visual cortex. Curr Biol 23:1427–1431. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.065 pmid:23871239
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Baddeley A
    (2012) Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 63:1–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 pmid:21961947
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Chang C,
    2. Lin C
    (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2:1–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Christophel TB,
    2. Haynes JD
    (2014) Decoding complex flow-field patterns in visual working memory. Neuroimage 91:43–51. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.025 pmid:24480302
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Christophel TB,
    2. Hebart MN,
    3. Haynes JD
    (2012) Decoding the contents of visual short-term memory from human visual and parietal cortex. J Neurosci 32:12983–12989. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0184-12.2012 pmid:22993415
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Christophel TB,
    2. Klink PC,
    3. Spitzer B,
    4. Roelfsema PR,
    5. Haynes JD
    (2017) The distributed nature of working memory. Trends Cogn Sci 21:111–124. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.007 pmid:28063661
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Chun MM,
    2. Johnson MK
    (2011) Memory: enduring traces of perceptual and reflective attention. Neuron 72:520–535. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.026 pmid:22099456
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. D'Esposito M,
    2. Postle BR
    (2015) The cognitive neuroscience of working memory. Annu Rev Psychol 66:115–142. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015031 pmid:25251486
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Eickhoff SB,
    2. Stephan KE,
    3. Mohlberg H,
    4. Grefkes C,
    5. Fink GR,
    6. Amunts K,
    7. Zilles K
    (2005) A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. Neuroimage 25:1325–1335. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.034 pmid:15850749
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Eickhoff SB,
    2. Paus T,
    3. Caspers S,
    4. Grosbras MH,
    5. Evans AC,
    6. Zilles K,
    7. Amunts K
    (2007) Assignment of functional activations to probabilistic cytoarchitectonic areas revisited. Neuroimage 36:511–521. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.060 pmid:17499520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Emrich SM,
    2. Riggall AC,
    3. Larocque JJ,
    4. Postle BR
    (2013) Distributed patterns of activity in sensory cortex reflect the precision of multiple items maintained in visual short-term memory. J Neurosci 33:6516–6523. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5732-12.2013 pmid:23575849
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Ester EF,
    2. Sprague TC,
    3. Serences JT
    (2015) Parietal and frontal cortex encode stimulus-specific mnemonic representations during visual working memory parietal and frontal cortex encode stimulus-specific mnemonic representations during visual working memory. Neuron 87:893–905. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.07.013 pmid:26257053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Fan R-E,
    2. Chang K-W,
    3. Hsieh C-J,
    4. Wang X-R,
    5. Lin C-J
    (2008) LIBLINEAR: a library for large linear classification. J Mach Learn Res 9:1871–1874.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Fechner G
    (1966) Elements of psychophysics. Vol. I. Elem Psychophys Vol I.
  15. ↵
    1. Fegen D,
    2. Buchsbaum BR,
    3. D'Esposito M
    (2015) The effect of rehearsal rate and memory load on verbal working memory. Neuroimage 105:120–131. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.034 pmid:25467303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Goldman-Rakic PS
    (1995) Cellular basis of working memory review. Neuron 14:477–485. doi:10.1016/0896-6273(95)90304-6 pmid:7695894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Haynes JD
    (2015) A primer on pattern-based approaches to fMRI: principles, pitfalls, and perspectives. Neuron 87:257–270. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.025 pmid:26182413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Hebart MN,
    2. Görgen K,
    3. Haynes JD
    (2015) The Decoding Toolbox (TDT): a versatile software package for multivariate analyses of functional imaging data. Front Neuroinform 8:88. doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00088 pmid:25610393
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Hernández A,
    2. Zainos A,
    3. Romo R
    (2000) Neuronal correlates of sensory discrimination in the somatosensory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:6191–6196. doi:10.1073/pnas.120018597 pmid:10811922
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Hernández A,
    2. Nácher V,
    3. Luna R,
    4. Zainos A,
    5. Lemus L,
    6. Alvarez M,
    7. Vázquez Y,
    8. Camarillo L,
    9. Romo R
    (2010) Decoding a perceptual decision process across cortex. Neuron 66:300–314. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.031 pmid:20435005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Jerde TA,
    2. Merriam EP,
    3. Riggall AC,
    4. Hedges JH,
    5. Curtis CE
    (2012) Prioritized maps of space in human frontoparietal cortex. J Neurosci 32:17382–17390. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3810-12.2012 pmid:23197729
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Kahnt T,
    2. Heinzle J,
    3. Park SQ,
    4. Haynes JD
    (2011) Decoding different roles for vmPFC and dlPFC in multi-attribute decision making. Neuroimage 56:709–715. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.058 pmid:20510371
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Kosslyn SM
    (2005) Mental images and the brain. Cogn Neuropsychol 22:333–347. doi:10.1080/02643290442000130 pmid:21038254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Kriegeskorte N,
    2. Goebel R,
    3. Bandettini P
    (2006) Information-based functional brain mapping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:3863–3868. doi:10.1073/pnas.0600244103 pmid:16537458
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Larocque JJ,
    2. Lewis-Peacock JA,
    3. Postle BR
    (2014) Multiple neural states of representation in short-term memory? It's a matter of attention. Front Hum Neurosci 8:5. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00005 pmid:24478671
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Lee SH,
    2. Baker CI
    (2016) Multi-voxel decoding and the topography of maintained information during visual working memory. Front Syst Neurosci 10:2. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2016.00002 pmid:26912997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Lee SH,
    2. Kravitz DJ,
    3. Baker CI
    (2013) Goal-dependent dissociation of visual and prefrontal cortices during working memory. Nat Neurosci 16:997–999. doi:10.1038/nn.3452 pmid:23817547
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Lewis-Peacock JA,
    2. Drysdale AT,
    3. Postle BR
    (2015) Neural evidence for the flexible control of mental representations. Cereb Cortex 25:3303–3313. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu130 pmid:24935778
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Myers NE,
    2. Stokes MG,
    3. Nobre AC
    (2017) Prioritizing information during working memory: beyond sustained internal attention. Trends Cogn Sci 21:449–461. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.010 pmid:28454719
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Nieder A
    (2013) Coding of abstract quantity by “number neurons” of the primate brain. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 199:1–16. doi:10.1007/s00359-012-0763-9 pmid:23052854
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Nieder A,
    2. Dehaene S
    (2009) Representation of number in the brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 32:185–208. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135550 pmid:19400715
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Norman KA,
    2. Polyn SM,
    3. Detre GJ,
    4. Haxby JV
    (2006) Beyond mind-reading: multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data. Trends Cogn Sci 10:424–430. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.005 pmid:16899397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Oldfield RC
    (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 pmid:5146491
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Pasternak T,
    2. Greenlee MW
    (2005) Working memory in primate sensory systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:97–107. doi:10.1038/nrn1603 pmid:15654324
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Pinel P,
    2. Piazza M,
    3. Le Bihan D,
    4. Dehaene S
    (2004) Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron 41:983–993. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00107-2 pmid:15046729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Postle BR
    (2015) The cognitive neuroscience of visual short-term memory. Curr Opin Behav Sci 1:40–46. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.08.004 pmid:26516631
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Preuschhof C,
    2. Heekeren HR,
    3. Taskin B,
    4. Schubert T,
    5. Villringer A
    (2006) Neural correlates of vibrotactile working memory in the human brain. J Neurosci 26:13231–13239. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2767-06.2006 pmid:17182773
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Riggall AC,
    2. Postle BR
    (2012) The relationship between working memory storage and elevated activity as measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci 32:12990–12998. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1892-12.2012 pmid:22993416
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Riley MR,
    2. Constantinidis C
    (2016) Role of prefrontal persistent activity in working memory. Front Syst Neurosci 9:181. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2015.00181 pmid:26778980
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. de Lafuente V
    (2013) Conversion of sensory signals into perceptual decisions. Prog Neurobiol 103:41–75. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.03.007 pmid:22472964
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. Salinas E
    (2001) Touch and go: decision-making mechanisms in somatosensation. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:107–137. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.107 pmid:11283307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. Salinas E
    (2003) Flutter discrimination: neural codes, perception, memory and decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:203–218. doi:10.1038/nrn1058 pmid:12612633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. Brody CD,
    3. Hernández A,
    4. Lemus L
    (1999) Neuronal correlates of parametric working memory in the prefrontal cortex. Nature 399:470–473. doi:10.1038/20939 pmid:10365959
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. Hernández A,
    3. Zainos A,
    4. Lemus L,
    5. Brody CD
    (2002) Neuronal correlates of decision-making in secondary somatosensory cortex. Nat Neurosci 5:1217–1225. doi:10.1038/nn950 pmid:12368806
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. Hernández A,
    3. Zainos A
    (2004) Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision in ventral premotor cortex. Neuron 41:165–173. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00817-1 pmid:14715143
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Romo R,
    2. Lemus L,
    3. de Lafuente V
    (2012) Sense, memory, and decision-making in the somatosensory cortical network. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22:914–919. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.08.002 pmid:22939031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Schlegel A,
    2. Kohler PJ,
    3. Fogelson SV,
    4. Alexander P,
    5. Konuthula D,
    6. Tse PU
    (2013) Network structure and dynamics of the mental workspace. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:16277–16282. doi:10.1073/pnas.1311149110 pmid:24043842
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Schmidt TT,
    2. Ostwald D,
    3. Blankenburg F
    (2014) Imaging tactile imagery: Changes in brain connectivity support perceptual grounding of mental images in primary sensory cortices. Neuroimage 98:216–224. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.014 pmid:24836010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Spitzer B,
    2. Blankenburg F
    (2012) Supramodal parametric working memory processing in humans. J Neurosci 32:3287–3295. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5280-11.2012 pmid:22399750
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Spitzer B,
    2. Gloel M,
    3. Schmidt TT,
    4. Blankenburg F
    (2014a) Working memory coding of analog stimulus properties in the human prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 24:2229–2236. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht084 pmid:23547134
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Spitzer B,
    2. Fleck S,
    3. Blankenburg F
    (2014b) Parametric alpha- and beta-band signatures of supramodal numerosity information in human working memory. J Neurosci 34:4293–4302. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4580-13.2014 pmid:24647949
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Spitzer B,
    2. Goltz D,
    3. Wacker E,
    4. Auksztulewicz R,
    5. Blankenburg F
    (2014b) Maintenance and manipulation of somatosensory information in ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 35:2412–2423. doi:10.1002/hbm.22337 pmid:23913849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Sreenivasan KK,
    2. Curtis CE,
    3. D'Esposito M
    (2014) Revisiting the role of persistent neural activity during working memory. Trends Cogn Sci 18:82–89. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.001 pmid:24439529
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Tong F
    (2013) Imagery and visual working memory: one and the same? Trends Cogn Sci 17:489–490. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.08.005 pmid:23958465
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Walsh V
    (2003) A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends Cogn Sci 7:483–488. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002 pmid:14585444
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Zhou YD,
    2. Fuster JM
    (1996) Mnemonic neuronal activity in somatosensory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:10533–10537. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.19.10533 pmid:8927629
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Zhou YD,
    2. Fuster JM
    (2000) Visuo-tactile cross-modal associations in cortical somatosensory cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:9777–9782. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.17.9777 pmid:10944237
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 37 (40)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 37, Issue 40
4 Oct 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Content-Specific Codes of Parametric Vibrotactile Working Memory in Humans
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Content-Specific Codes of Parametric Vibrotactile Working Memory in Humans
Timo Torsten Schmidt, Yuan-hao Wu, Felix Blankenburg
Journal of Neuroscience 4 October 2017, 37 (40) 9771-9777; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1167-17.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Content-Specific Codes of Parametric Vibrotactile Working Memory in Humans
Timo Torsten Schmidt, Yuan-hao Wu, Felix Blankenburg
Journal of Neuroscience 4 October 2017, 37 (40) 9771-9777; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1167-17.2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • mental representation
  • prefrontal cortex
  • support vector regression
  • vibrotactile
  • working memory

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Lumateperone Normalizes Pathological Levels of Acute Inflammation through Important Pathways Known to Be Involved in Mood Regulation
  • Estrous Cycle Mediates Midbrain Neuron Excitability Altering Social Behavior upon Stress
  • Chronic Ethanol Exposure Modulates Periaqueductal Gray to Extended Amygdala Dopamine Circuit
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Pulvinar Response Profiles and Connectivity Patterns to Object Domains
  • Subtype-Specific Roles of Ellipsoid Body Ring Neurons in Sleep Regulation in Drosophila
  • Proprioceptive and Visual Feedback Responses in Macaques Exploit Goal Redundancy
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.