On the efficiency of instruction-based rule encoding

Instructional load induces functional connectivity changes linked to task automaticity and mnemonic preference

Learning new rules rapidly and effectively via instructions is ubiquitous in our daily lives, yet the underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms are complex. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging we examined the effects of different instructional load conditions (4 vs. 10 stimulus-response rules) on functional couplings during rule implementation (always 4 rules). Focusing on connections of lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) regions, the results emphasized an opposing trend of load-related changes in LPFC-seeded couplings. On the one hand, during the low-load condition LPFC regions were more strongly coupled with cortical areas mostly assigned to networks such as the fronto-parietal network and the dorsal attention network. On the other hand, during the high-load condition, the same LPFC areas were more strongly coupled with default mode network areas. These results suggest differences in automated processing evoked by features of the instruction and an enduring response conflict mediated by lingering episodic long-term memory traces when instructional load exceeds working memory capacity limits. The ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) exhibited hemispherical differences regarding whole-brain coupling and practice-related dynamics. Left VLPFC connections showed a persistent load-related effect independent of practice and were associated with 'objective' learning success in overt behavioral performance, consistent with a role in mediating the enduring influence of the initially instructed task rules. Right VLPFC's connections, in turn, were more susceptible to practice-related effects, suggesting a more flexible role possibly related to ongoing rule updating processes throughout rule implementation.

Instructing item-specific switch probability: expectations modulate stimulus-action priming

Both active response execution and passive listening to verbal codes (a form of instruction) in single prime trials lead to item-specific repetition priming effects when stimuli re-occur in single probe trials. This holds for task-specific classification (stimulus-classification, SC priming, e.g., apple-small) and action (stimulus-action, SA priming, e.g., apple-right key press). To address the influence of expectation on item-specific SC and SA associations, we tested if item-specific SC and SA priming effects were modulated by the instructed probability of re-encountering individual SC or SA mappings (25% vs. 75% instructed switch probability). Importantly, the experienced item-specific switch probability was always 50%. In Experiment 1 (N = 78), item-specific SA/SC switch  expectations affected SA, but not SC priming effects exclusively following active response execution. Experiment 2 (N = 40) was designed to emphasize SA priming by only including item-specific SC repetitions. This yielded stronger SA priming for 25% vs. 75% expected switch probability, both following response execution as in Experiment 1 and also following verbally coded SA associations. Together, these results suggest that SA priming effects, that is, the encoding and retrieval of SA associations, is modulated by item-specific switch expectation. Importantly, this expectation effect cannot be explained by item-specific associative learning mechanisms, as stimuli were primed and probed only once and participants experienced item-specific repetitions/switches equally often across stimuli independent of instructed switch probabilities. This corroborates and extends previous results by showing that SA priming effects are modulated by  expectation not only based on experienced item-specific switch probabilities, but also on mere instruction.

Neural representation of newly instructed rule identities during early implementation trials

By following explicit instructions, humans instantaneously get the hang of tasks they have never performed before. We used a specially calibrated multivariate analysis technique to uncover the elusive representational states during the first few implementations of arbitrary rules such as ‘for coffee, press red button’ following their first-time instruction. Distributed activity patterns within the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) indicated the presence of neural representations specific of individual stimulus-response (S-R) rule identities, preferentially for conditions requiring the memorization of instructed S-R rules for correct performance. Identity-specific representations were detectable starting from the first implementation trial and continued to be present across early implementation trials. The increasingly fluent application of novel rule representations was channelled through increasing cooperation between VLPFC and anterior striatum. These findings inform representational theories on how the prefrontal cortex supports behavioral flexibility specifically by enabling the ad-hoc coding of newly instructed individual rule identities during their first-time implementation.

Probing the early phase of rapid instructed rule encoding

Humans can rapidly convert instructions about a rule into functional neural structures used to apply the rule. The early stages of this encoding process are poorly understood. We designed a stimulus-response (SR) task in which participants were first shown a SR rule on a screen for 200 ms, and then had to apply it to a test stimulus T, which either matched the S in the rule (SR trial) or not (catch trial). To investigate the early stages of rule encoding, the delay between the end of rule display and the onset of the test stimulus was manipulated and chosen between values of 50 ms to 1300 ms. Participants conducted three sessions of 288 trials each, separated by a median of 9 h. Random sequences of 20 rules were used. We then analysed the reaction times and the types of errors made by participants in the different conditions. The analysis of practice effects in session 1 suggests that the neural networks that process SR and catch trials are at least partially distinct, and improve separately during the practice of respectively SR and catch trials. The rule-encoding process, however, is common to both tasks and improves with the number of trials, irrespective of the trial type. Rule encoding shows interesting dynamic properties that last for 500 ms after the end of the stimulus presentation. The encoding process increases the response time in a non-stochastic way, simply adding a reaction time cost to all responses. The rule-retrieval system is functional before the encoding has stabilized, as early as 50 ms after the end of SR rule presentation, with low response errors. It is sensitive to masking however, producing errors with brief (100 ms) test stimulus presentations. Once encoding has stabilized, the sensitivity to masking disappears. It is suggested that participants do encode rules as a parametrized function, using the same neural encoding structure for each trial, rather than reconfiguring their brain anew for each new SR rule. This structure would have been implemented from instructions received prior to the experiment, by using a library of neural functions available in the brain. The observed errors are consistent with this view.

Rapid instructed task learning (but not automatic effects of instructions) is influenced by working memory load

The ability to efficiently perform actions immediately following instructions and without prior practice has previously been termed Rapid Instructed Task Learning (RITL). In addition, it was found that instructions are so powerful that they can produce automatic effects, reflected in activation of the instructions in an inappropriate task context. RITL is hypothesized to rely on limited working memory (WM) resources for holding not-yet implemented task rules. Similarly, automatic effects of instructions presumably reflect the operation of task rules kept in WM. Therefore, both were predicted to be influenced by WM load. However, while the involvement of WM in RITL is implicated from prior studies, evidence regarding WM involvement in instructions-based automaticity is mixed. In the current study, we manipulated WM load by increasing the number of novel task rules to be held in WM towards performance in the NEXT paradigm. In this task, participants performed a series of novel tasks presented in mini-blocks, each comprising a) instructions of novel task rules; b) a NEXT phase measuring the automatic activation of these instructed rules, in which participants advance the screen using a key-press; and c) a GO phase in which the new rules are first implemented and RITL is measured. In three experiments, we show a dissociation: While RITL (rule implementation) was impaired by increased WM load, the automatic effects of instructions were not robustly influenced by WM load. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Deterministic response strategies in a trial-and-error learning task

Trial-and-error learning is a universal strategy for establishing which actions are beneficial or harmful in new environments. However, learning stimulus-response associations solely via trial-and-error is often suboptimal, as in many settings dependencies among stimuli and responses can be exploited to increase learning efficiency. Previous studies have shown that in settings featuring such dependencies, humans typically engage high-level cognitive processes and employ advanced learning strategies to improve their learning efficiency. Here we analyze in detail the initial learning phase of a sample of human subjects (N = 85) performing a trial-and-error learning task with deterministic feedback and hidden stimulus-response dependencies. Using computational modeling, we find that the standard Q-learning model cannot sufficiently explain human learning strategies in this setting. Instead, newly introduced deterministic response models, which are theoretically optimal and transform stimulus sequences unambiguously into response sequences, provide the best explanation for 50.6% of the subjects. Most of the remaining subjects either show a tendency towards generic optimal learning (21.2%) or at least partially exploit stimulus-response dependencies (22.3%), while a few subjects (5.9%) show no clear preference for any of the employed models. After the initial learning phase, asymptotic learning performance during the subsequent practice phase is best explained by the standard Q-learning model. Our results show that human learning strategies in the presented trial-and-error learning task go beyond merely associating stimuli and responses via incremental reinforcement. Specifically during initial learning, high-level cognitive processes support sophisticated learning strategies that increase learning efficiency while keeping memory demands and computational efforts bounded. The good asymptotic fit of the Q-learning model indicates that these cognitive processes are successively replaced by the formation of stimulus-response associations over the course of learning.

When global rule reversal meets local task switching: The neural mechanisms of coordinated behavioral adaptation to instructed multi-level demand changes

Cognitive flexibility is essential to cope with changing task demands and often it is necessary to adapt to combined changes in a coordinated manner. The present fMRI study examined how the brain implements such multi-level adaptation processes. Specifically, on a "local," hierarchically lower level, switching between two tasks was required across trials while the rules of each task remained unchanged for blocks of trials. On a "global" level regarding blocks of twelve trials, the task rules could reverse or remain the same. The current task was cued at the start of each trial while the current task rules were instructed before the start of a new block. We found that partly overlapping and partly segregated neural networks play different roles when coping with the combination of global rule reversal and local task switching. The fronto-parietal control network (FPN) supported the encoding of reversed rules at the time of explicit rule instruction. The same regions subsequently supported local task switching processes during actual implementation trials, irrespective of rule reversal condition. By contrast, a cortico-striatal network (CSN) including supplementary motor area and putamen was increasingly engaged across implementation trials and more so for rule reversal than for nonreversal blocks, irrespective of task switching condition. Together, these findings suggest that the brain accomplishes the coordinated adaptation to multi-level demand changes by distributing processing resources either across time (FPN for reversed rule encoding and later for task switching) or across regions (CSN for reversed rule implementation and FPN for concurrent task switching).