How Abstract (Non-embodied) Linguistic Representations Augment Cognitive Control

Distinguishing semantic control and phonological control and their role in aphasic deficits: A task switching investigation

People use cognitive control across many contexts in daily life, yet it remains unclear how cognitive control is used in contexts involving language. Distinguishing language-specific cognitive control components may be critical to understanding aphasia, which can co-occur with cognitive control deficits. For example, deficits in control of semantic representations (i.e., semantic control), are thought to contribute to semantic deficits in aphasia. Conversely, little is known about control of phonological representations (i.e., phonological control) in aphasia. We developed a switching task to investigate semantic and phonological control in 32 left hemisphere stroke survivors with aphasia and 37 matched controls. We found that phonological and semantic control were related, but dissociate in the presence of switching demands. People with aphasia exhibited group-wise impairment at phonological control, although individual impairments were subtle except in one case. Several individuals with aphasia exhibited frank semantic control impairments, and these individuals had relative deficits on other semantic tasks. The present findings distinguish semantic control from phonological control, and confirm that semantic control impairments contribute to semantic deficits in aphasia.

Exploring the Link between Novel Task Proceduralization and Motor Simulation

Our ability to generate efficient behavior from novel instructions is critical for our adaptation to changing environments. Despite the absence of previous experience, novel instructed content is quickly encoded into an action-based or procedural format, facilitating automatic task processing. In the current work, we investigated the link between proceduralization and motor simulation, specifically, whether the covert activation of the task-relevant responses is used during the assembly of action-based instructions representations. Across three online experiments, we used a concurrent finger-tapping task to block motor simulation during the encoding of novel stimulus-response (S-R) associations. The overlap between the mappings and the motor task at the response level was manipulated. We predicted a greater impairment at mapping implementation in the overlapping condition, where the mappings' relevant response representations were already loaded by the motor demands, and thus, could not be used in the upcoming task simulation. This hypothesis was robustly supported by the three datasets. Nonetheless, the overlapping effect was not modulated by further manipulations of proceduralization-related variables (preparation demands in Exp.2, mapping novelty in Exp.3). Importantly, a fourth control experiment ruled out that our results were driven by alternative accounts as fatigue or negative priming. Overall, we provided strong evidence towards the involvement of motor simulation during anticipatory task reconfiguration. However, this involvement was rather general, and not restricted to novelty scenarios. Finally, these findings can be also integrated into broader models of anticipatory task control, stressing the role of the motor system during preparation.