Savannah Cookson1, Heather Roberts1, Greg

On Your Mark, Get Set…;
Neural Correlates of Cue-Related Response Preparation
Cookson ,
Roberts ,
Szalkowski ,
Spratt ,
McPherson ,
Behavioral Results
Human behavior relies on the accumulation of taskrelevant information until the range of possible
responses is narrowed down to a single correct
response. How do we utilize advance information
that can help us respond to a future task? How is
this performance benefit facilitated in the brain?
Previous neuroimaging experiments have found cue-specific
activity in the response cuing paradigm5. This experiment
investigates the neural correlates of the interaction between task
sets and the cuing effect in both control6,7- and sensorimotor8
processing regions using a novel event-related design.
•  Accuracies at ceiling (Avg Accuracy = 95.1%)
•  Significant main effect of cue
type on reaction time (RT): p = .011
o  Neutral – Response Cue = 20.07 ± 8.9ms,
p = .017
o  Neutral – Stimulus Cue = 21.85 ± 7.9ms,
p = .006
o  No difference between Response and
Stimulus cues (p = .424)
Neuroimaging Results
Whole-brain analysis at the stimulus showed activity versus baseline
and between stimulus and response types
1 •  Uncued stimulus presentation showed
increased bilateral MFG (1), FFG (2), middle/
inferior OC (3), and superior parietal (4) regions.
5 2 3 4 Cue types:
•  Stimulus (Face or Place)
•  Response (Left or Right)
•  Non-informative (O)
•  CSI and ITI are jittered
exponentially from
2000ms to 8000ms.
•  ROI
analysis of expected
control and sensorimotor
r •  Uncued Left (yellow) versus right
(blue) responses show contralateral
activity in cortical motor processing
regions (5) and ipsilateral activity in
cerebellum (6)
9 7 Future Directions
•  ROI analysis will alleviate power
issues associated with whole-brain
analysis of association cortex
6 •  Uncued places
stimuli show increased
activity in bilateral
MFG (7,8) and PHG (9)
over face stimuli. Face
stimuli did not
produce significant
activity compared to
place stimuli.
•  Behavioral results show the expected behavioral
performance benefit for informative cues over
neutral; however, face cues do not show an effect
•  Whole brain results confirm stimulus-related
activation of relevant sensorimotor processing
areas; face stimuli do not show significant activity
over place stimuli
•  Cue-related activity does not survive FDR
correction at the .05 level; this may be a result of a
lack of power, or may be related to the unexpected
results from the face cues/stimuli.
•  Face/place localizer task and
regions defined in the literature for
cuing activity
•  Participants were given
a cue 500ms before the
Eric H.
Institute of Technology, 2University of Iowa
Rosenbaum1 originally used the response cuing paradigm to
demonstrate a benefit of advance partial information on upcoming
task performance. Adam et al2 later proposed the Grouping Model,
in which Gestalt-like subgrouping of the stimulus and response sets
drives the cue benefit. This mechanism may more generally reflect
the implementation of separate task sets, which represent stimuli,
actions, and context associated with a goal3. Through these task
sets, we may implement control processes that monitor our actions
in context of our goals and adjust behavior accordingly. Task sets
have been shown to influence the implementation of control4.
Hazeltine ,
8 ***Cue-related activity did not survive FDR correction***
•  Will allow us to directly
investigate patterns of activity in
areas that are known to be involved
in cuing and sensorimotor
•  Run and compare results for a group in which
faces and places are alternated by finger (1 task)
1. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The Movement Precuing Technique: Assumptions,
Applications, and Extensions. In A. M. Richard (Ed.), Advances in Psychology (12,
pp. 231-274): North-Holland.
2. Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action
(I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cogn Psych, 46(3),
3. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and
action. TICS, 8(11), 494-500.
4. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain.
TICS, 12(10), 374-380.
5. Adam, J. J., Backes, W., Rijcken, J., Hofman, P., Kuipers, H., & Jolles, J. (2003).
Rapid visuomotor preparation in the human brain: a functional MRI study. Cogn
Brain Res, 16(1), 1-10.
6. Badre, D. (2008). Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization
of the frontal lobes. TICS, 12(5), 193-200.
7. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex
function. Annu Rev Neurosci, 24, 167-202.
8. Egner, T, & Hirsch, y. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through
cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nat Neurosci, 8(12), 1784-1790.