RESUMEN
Significance: Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is unique among neuroimaging techniques in its ability to estimate changes in both oxyhemoglobin (HbO) and deoxyhemoglobin (HbR). However, fNIRS research has applied various data reporting practices based on these chromophores as measures of neural activation. Aim: To quantify the variability of fNIRS chromophore data reporting practices and to explore recent data reporting trends in the literature. Approach: We reviewed 660 fNIRS papers from 2015, 2018, and 2021 to extract information on fNIRS chromophore data reporting practices. Results: Our review revealed five general practices for reporting fNIRS chromophores: (1) HbO only, (2) HbR only, (3) HbO and HbR, (4) correlation-based signal improvement, and (5) either the total (HbT) or difference (HbDiff) in concentration between chromophores. The field was primarily divided between reporting HbO only and reporting HbO and HbR. However, reporting one chromophore (HbO) was consistently observed as the most popular data reporting practice for each year reviewed. Conclusions: Our results highlight the high heterogeneity of chromophore data reporting in fNIRS research. We discuss its potential implications for study comparison efforts and interpretation of results. Most importantly, our review demonstrates the need for a standard chromophore reporting practice to improve scientific transparency and, ultimately, to better understand how neural events relate to cognitive phenomena.
RESUMEN
Understanding the dynamics of selective attention has been a central research goal in the cognitive sciences. One account proposes that attention is unitary and increases in selectivity continuously over time. An alternative account proposes that attention switches from a low to a high state of selectivity at a discrete point in time when a distinct selective attention mechanism is engaged. Despite posing fundamentally different theoretical perspectives on selective attention, both accounts have successfully explained outcome-based data, such as reaction time. Here, we used mouse-tracking, which provides high temporal resolution to record movement trajectories in a flanker task. We examined spatial and temporal movement dynamics for characteristics of continuous and discrete shifts in attentional selectivity. Our results showed that attentional selectivity increases gradually over time, rather than abruptly, demonstrating a continuous process of selective attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Movimiento , Humanos , Tiempo de ReacciónRESUMEN
The motor system is traditionally thought to reflect the output of cognition. However, the inverse relationship of how the motor system impacts cognitive processes is less known. Work on this interaction has demonstrated that recognition memory for stimuli presented in combination with the inhibition of a prepared action is weaker compared to stimuli associated with the execution of an action (Chiu & Egner, Psychological Science, 26, 27-38, 2015a). This effect has been explained through competition for common neural resources: to the extent that response inhibition processes are recruited, fewer resources are available for memory encoding (Chiu & Egner, Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 11936-11945, 2015b). Alternatively, it has been proposed that action execution enhances memory encoding (Yebra et al., Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-12, 2019). In this report, we examined how recognition memory for stimuli paired with both the preparation and execution of a motor response compare to stimuli absent of any motor processes. We first replicated Chiu and Egner (2015a, 2015b). Next, we added a motor-neutral condition as a baseline comparison. Across three experiments, recognition memory for stimuli associated with action execution was superior to stimuli absent of motor demands. More importantly, we found that recognition memory for stimuli associated with motor preparation, but no subsequent execution, was also superior to stimuli that did not engage the motor system (Experiments 2a and 2b). These results support a motor-induced encoding effect, in which the degree of motor processing (both action preparation and action execution) enhanced memory encoding.