Search bioRxivSearch

Biology subjects

Bae, G.-Y.

Publications and source records attributed to Bae, G.-Y..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Neural evidence for categorical biases in working memory for location and orientation

Previous research demonstrated that visual working memory exhibits biases with respect to the categorical structure of the stimulus space. However, a majority of those studies used behavioral measures of working memory, and it is not clear whether the working memory representations per se are influenced by the categorical structure or whether the biases arise in decision or response processes during the report. Here, I applied a multivariate decoding technique to EEG data collected during working memory tasks to determine whether neural activity associated with the working memory representation is categorically biased prior to the report. I found that the decoding of spatial working memory was biased away from the nearest cardinal location, consistent with the biases observed in the behavioral responses. In a follow-up experiment which was designed to prevent the use of a response preparation strategy, I found that the decoding still exhibited categorical biases. Together, these results provide neural evidence that working memory representations themselves are categorically biased, imposing important constraints on the computational models of working memory representations.

neuroscience

Appropriate Correction for Multiple Comparisons in Decoding of ERP Data: A Re-Analysis of Bae & Luck (2018)

Bae & Luck (2018) reported a study of visual working memory in which the orientation being held in memory was decoded from the scalp distribution of sustained ERP activity and alpha-band EEG oscillations. Decoding accuracy was compared to chance at each point during the delay interval, and a correction for multiple comparisons was applied to find clusters of consecutive above-chance time points that were stronger than would be expected by chance. However, the correction used in that study did not account for the autocorrelation of the noise and may have been overly liberal. Here, we describe a more appropriate correction procedure and apply it to the data from Bae & Luck (2018). We find that the major clusters of time points that were significantly above chance with the original correction procedure remained above chance with the updated correction procedure. However, some minor clusters that were significant with the original procedure were no longer significant with the updated procedure. We recommend that future studies use the updated correction procedure.

neuroscience