Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Gureckis, T. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Gureckis, T. M..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Identifying Causal Subsequent Memory Effects

Over 40 years of accumulated research has detailed associations between neuroimaging signals measured during a memory encoding task and later memory performance, across a variety of brain regions, measurement tools, statistical approaches and behavioral tasks. But the interpretation of these Subsequent Memory Effects (SMEs) remains unclear: if the identified signals reflect cognitive and neural mechanisms of memory encoding then the underlying neural activity must be causally related to future memory. However, almost all previous SME analyses do not control for potential confounders of this causal interpretation, such as serial position and item effects. We collect a large fMRI dataset and use a novel experimental design and analysis approach that allows us to statistically adjust for all exogenous confounding variables. We find that, using standard approaches without adjustment, we replicate several univariate and multivariate subsequent memory effects and are able to predict memory performance across people. However, we are unable to identify any signal that reliably predicts subsequent memory after adjusting for confounding variables, bringing into doubt the causal status of these effects. We apply the same approach to subjects judgments of learning collected during an encoding period, and show that these behavioral measures of encoding quality do predict memory after adjustments, suggesting that it is possible to measure signals at the time of encoding that reflect causal mechanisms but that existing neuroimaging measures may not have the precision and specificity to do so.

neuroscience↗

Getting Blood from a Stone: Improving Neural Inferences without Additional Neural Data

In recent years, the cognitive neuroscience literature has come under criticism for containing many low-powered studies, limiting the ability to make reliable statistical inferences. Typically, the suggestion for increasing power is to collect more data with neural signals. However, many studies in cognitive neuroscience use parameters estimated from behavioral data in order to make inferences about neural signals (such as fMRI BOLD signal). In this paper, we explore how cognitive neuroscientists can learn more about their neuroimaging signal by collecting data on behavior alone and using alternative estimators designed to leverage this information. We demonstrate through simulation and mathematical derivations that knowing more about the marginal distribution of behavior can improve inferences about the mapping between cognitive processes and neural data. We analyze the magnitude of this benefit, finding that it depends on the desired estimand and several underlying study parameters. While in many cases the absolute gains in precision can be modest, our results demonstrate that, in realistic settings, additional behavioral data can lead to the same improvement in the precision of inferences more cheaply and easily than collecting additional data from subjects in a neuroimaging study. This means that when conducting a neuroimaging study, researchers now have another knob to turn in a design analysis: the number of subjects collected in the scanner and the number of behavioral subjects collected outside the scanner (in the lab or online).

neuroscience↗

Behavioral, physiological, and neural signatures of surprise during naturalistic sports viewing

Surprise signals a discrepancy between past and current beliefs. It is theorized to be linked to affective experiences, the creation of particularly resilient memories, and segmentation of the flow of experience into discrete perceived events. However, the ability to precisely measure naturalistic surprise has remained elusive. We used advanced basketball analytics to derive a quantitative measure of surprise and characterized its behavioral, physiological, and neural correlates in human subjects observing basketball games. We found that surprise was associated with segmentation of ongoing experiences, as reflected by subjectively perceived event boundaries and shifts in neocortical patterns underlying belief states. Interestingly, these effects differed by whether surprising moments contradicted or bolstered current predominant beliefs. Surprise also positively correlated with pupil dilation, activation in subcortical regions associated with dopamine, game enjoyment, and long-term memory. These investigations support key predictions from event segmentation theory and extend theoretical conceptualizations of surprise to real-world contexts.

neuroscience↗