Dynamics of brainstem arousal systems and pupil size predict cortical interactions for flexible decision-making
van den Brink, R. L.; Hagena, K.; Wilming, N.; Murphy, P. R.; Calder-Travis, J.; Finsterbusch, J.; Büchel, C.; Donner, T. H.
Show abstract
Most perceptual decisions entail a flexible mapping from sensory input to motor output. Flexible input-output mapping is reflected in correlated variability within the cortical network involved in perceptual decisions. Here, we tested the idea that brainstem arousal systems are involved in flexible input-output mapping and changes in cortical correlated variability. We combined brainstem fMRI, pupillometry, and time-resolved assessment of the intrinsic correlations between cortical population codes for stimulus and action. Human participants reported the orientation of visual stimuli by button presses, while the required stimulus-response mapping rule could undergo hidden and unpredictable changes. Rule switches evoked brainstem and pupil responses as well as changes in computational model-inferred, latent variables. These variables governed participants rule-switching behavior and pupil responses. Brainstem activity and pupil dilation preceded increases in the strength of correlations between cortical stimulus and action codes. Brainstem arousal systems may promote the reorganization of sensorimotor cortical pathways for flexible decisions.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Phase of Firing Coding of Learning Variables across Prefrontal Cortex, Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Striatum during Feature Learning 97%
- Working Memory Representations in Visual Cortex Mediate the Effects of Distraction 96%
- Dynamically shifting from compositional to conjunctive brain representations supports cognitive task learning 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.