Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Neuroscience

Open Access

Simulating stimulus- and TMS-induced interference in short-term memory using a model of prefrontal cortex

  • Tyler D Bancroft1Email author,
  • William E Hockley1,
  • Philip Servos1 and
  • Jeremy Hogeveen1
BMC Neuroscience201415(Suppl 1):P141

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-15-S1-P141

Published: 21 July 2014

Scalar short-term memory (STM) tasks are those in which the to-be-remembered property of a stimulus can be represented as a scalar quantity – for example, the frequency of a tactile vibration or an auditory pure tone, or the duration or amplitude of a stimulus. Scalar STM tasks have been studied extensively using single-cell methods [13], and have proven to be useful model systems for examining behavioural aspects of short-term memory [46] and developing computational models [710]. In two studies [11, 12], we applied a model of prefrontal cortex [9] to experimental datasets [5, 13].

In Study 1, we simulated the effects of presenting an irrelevant (distractor) stimulus to experimental subjects during the maintenance period of a vibrotactile scalar STM task by assuming the stimulus was encoded into memory, intruding into the PFC memory store. We were able to replicate previous experimental results [5], and our results also suggested that distractors were only encoded into memory on approximately 50% of trials, consistent with experimental indications that activity in sensory cortex may be inhibited during memory maintenance in order to protect the contents of memory against interference [6, 14].

In Study 2, we simulated a previous vibrotactile scalar STM study in which TMS was applied to somatosensory cortex during the maintenance period of the memory task, resulting in decreased performance [13]. We were able to replicate experimental results by assuming that TMS produced increased, noisy neural activity in sensory cortex, which then degraded the contents of the PFC memory store through feedforward interference.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University

References

  1. Romo R, Brody CD, Hernández A, Lemus L: Neuronal correlates of parametric working memory in the prefrontal cortex. Nature. 1999, 399: 470-473. 10.1038/20939.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Romo R, Salinas E: Flutter discrimination: Neural codes, perception, memory and decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003, 4: 203-218. 10.1038/nrn1058.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Lemus L, Hernández A, Romo R: Neural encoding of auditory discrimination in ventral premotor cortex. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2009, 106: 14640-14645. 10.1073/pnas.0907505106.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Harris JA, Harris IM, Diamond ME: The topography of tactile working memory. J Neurosci. 2001, 21: 8262-8269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bancroft T, Servos P: Distractor frequency influences performance in vibrotactile working memory. Exp Brain Res. 2011, 208: 529-532. 10.1007/s00221-010-2501-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bancroft TD, Servos P, Hockley WE: Mechanisms of interference in vibrotactile working memory. PLoS ONE. 2011, 6: e22518-10.1371/journal.pone.0022518.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Machens CK, Romo R, Brody CD: Flexible control of mutual inhibition: A neural model of two-interval discrimination. Science. 2005, 307: 1121-1124. 10.1126/science.1104171.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Deco G, Rolls ET: Decision-making and Weber's law: A neurophysiological model. Eur J Neurosci. 2006, 24: 901-916. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04940.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller P, Wang XJ: Inhibitory control by an integral feedback signal in prefrontal cortex: A model of discrimination between sequential stimuli. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2006, 103: 201-206. 10.1073/pnas.0508072103.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Verguts T: How to compare two quantities? A computational model of flutter discrimination. J Cog Neurosci. 2007, 19: 409-419. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.3.409.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Bancroft TD, Hockley WE, Servos P: Irrelevant sensory stimuli interfere with working memory storage: Evidence from a computational model of prefrontal neurons. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2013, 13: 23-34. 10.3758/s13415-012-0131-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bancroft TD, Hogeveen J, Hockley WE, Servos P: TMS-induced neural noise in sensory cortex interferes with short-term memory storage. Front Comput Neurosci. 2014Google Scholar
  13. Harris JA, Miniussi C, Harris IM, Diamond ME: Transient storage of a tactile memory trace in primary somatosensory cortex. J Neurosci. 2002, 22: 8720-8725.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Linke AC, Vicente-Grabovetsky A, Cusack R: Stimulus-specific suppression preserves information in auditory short-term memory. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2011, 108: 12961-12966. 10.1073/pnas.1102118108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Bancroft et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement