Inhibitory Control in the Absence of Awareness: Interactions Between Frontal and Motor Cortex Oscillations Mediate Implicitly Learned Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive control of action is associated with conscious effort and is hypothesised to be reflected by increased frontal theta activity. However, the functional role of these increases in theta power, and how they contribute to cognitive control remains unknown. We conducted an MEG study to test the hypothesis that frontal theta oscillations interact with sensorimotor signals in order to produce controlled behaviour, and that the strength of these interactions will vary with the amount of control required. We measured neuromagnetic activity in 16 healthy adults performing a response inhibition (Go/Switch) task, known from previous work to modulate cognitive control requirements using hidden patterns of Go and Switch cues. Learning was confirmed by reduced reaction times (RT) to patterned compared to random Switch cues. Concurrent measures of pupil diameter revealed changes in subjective cognitive effort with stimulus probability, even in the absence of measurable behavioural differences, revealing instances of covert variations in cognitive effort. Significant theta oscillations were found in five frontal brain regions, with theta power in the right middle frontal and right premotor cortices parametrically increasing with cognitive effort. Similar increases in oscillatory power were also observed in motor cortical gamma, suggesting an interaction. Right middle frontal and right precentral theta activity predicted changes in pupil diameter across all experimental conditions, demonstrating a close relationship between frontal theta increases and cognitive control. Although no theta-gamma cross-frequency coupling was found, long-range theta phase coherence among the five significant sources between bilateral middle frontal, right inferior frontal, and bilateral premotor areas was found, thus providing a mechanism for the relay of cognitive control between frontal and motor areas via theta signalling. Furthermore, this provides the first evidence for the sensitivity of frontal theta oscillations to implicit motor learning and its effects on cognitive load. More generally these results present a possible a mechanism for this frontal theta network to coordinate response preparation, inhibition and execution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".