Simultaneous EEG-fMRI during a Working Memory Task: Modulations in Low and High Frequency Bands

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 04/2010; 5(4):e10298. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010298
Source: PubMed


EEG studies of working memory (WM) have demonstrated load dependent frequency band modulations. FMRI studies have localized load modulated activity to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), and posterior parietal cortex (PPC). Recently, an EEG-fMRI study found that low frequency band (theta and alpha) activity negatively correlated with the BOLD signal during the retention phase of a WM task. However, the coupling of higher (beta and gamma) frequencies with the BOLD signal during WM is unknown.
In 16 healthy adult subjects, we first investigated EEG-BOLD signal correlations for theta (5-7 Hz), alpha1 (8-10), alpha2 (10-12 Hz), beta1 (13-20), beta2 (20-30 Hz), and gamma (30-40 Hz) during the retention period of a WM task with set size 2 and 5. Secondly, we investigated whether load sensitive brain regions are characterised by effects that relate frequency bands to BOLD signals effects.
We found negative theta-BOLD signal correlations in the MPFC, PPC, and cingulate cortex (ACC and PCC). For alpha1 positive correlations with the BOLD signal were found in ACC, MPFC, and PCC; negative correlations were observed in DLPFC, PPC, and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Negative alpha2-BOLD signal correlations were observed in parieto-occipital regions. Beta1-BOLD signal correlations were positive in ACC and negative in precentral and superior temporal gyrus. Beta2 and gamma showed only positive correlations with BOLD, e.g., in DLPFC, MPFC (gamma) and IFG (beta2/gamma). The load analysis revealed that theta and--with one exception--beta and gamma demonstrated exclusively positive load effects, while alpha1 showed only negative effects.
We conclude that the directions of EEG-BOLD signal correlations vary across brain regions and EEG frequency bands. In addition, some brain regions show both load sensitive BOLD and frequency band effects. Our data indicate that lower as well as higher frequency brain oscillations are linked to neurovascular processes during WM.

Download full-text


Available from: Lars Michels,
  • Source
    • "However no significant difference in the θ-band was observed [22]. Moreover, in an EEG/fMRI study, θ, β and γ bands demonstrated positive load effects, while lower alpha showed negative effects [23]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our experiments explored the effect of visual stimuli degradation on cognitive workload. We investigated the subjective assessment, event-related potentials (ERPs) as well as electroencephalogram (EEG) as measures of cognitive workload. These experiments confirm that degradation of visual stimuli increases cognitive workload as assessed by subjective NASA task load index and confirmed by the observed P300 amplitude attenuation. Furthermore, the single-trial multi-level classification using features extracted from ERPs and EEG is found to be promising. Specifically, the adopted single-trial oscillatory EEG/ERP detection method achieved an average accuracy of 85% for discriminating 4 workload levels. Additionally, we found from the spatial patterns obtained from EEG signals that the frontal parts carry information that can be used for differentiating workload levels. Our results show that visual stimuli can modulate cognitive workload, and the modulation can be measured by the single trial EEG/ERP detection method.
    Journal of Neural Engineering 06/2015; 12(4):046020. DOI:10.1088/1741-2560/12/4/046020 · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Neverthe less , one hypothesis can be derived from the literature : Based on studies showing increased pre - stimulus DMN activity leading to deteriorated task performance ( Esposito et al . , 2006 ; Li et al . , 2007 ) , and the findings on load - dependent increases in theta power during WM tasks ( Onton et al . , 2005 ; Meltzer et al . , 2007 ; Michels et al . , 2008 , 2010 , 2012 ; Huang et al . , 2013 ) , we expected load - dependent decreases in pre - stimulus DMN activity to be predictive of load - dependent EEG theta power increases during the task ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Working memory (WM) processes depend on our momentary mental state and therefore exhibit considerable fluctuations. Here, we investigate the interplay of task-preparatory and task-related brain activity as represented by pre-stimulus BOLD-fluctuations and spectral EEG from the retention periods of a visual WM task. Visual WM is used to maintain sensory information in the brain enabling the performance of cognitive operations and is associated with mental health. We tested 22 subjects simultaneously with EEG and fMRI while performing a visuo-verbal Sternberg task with two different loads, allowing for the temporal separation of preparation, encoding, retention and retrieval periods. Four temporally coherent networks (TCNs)-the default mode network (DMN), the dorsal attention, the right and the left WM network-were extracted from the continuous BOLD data by means of a group ICA. Subsequently, the modulatory effect of these networks' pre-stimulus activation upon retention-related EEG activity in the theta, alpha, and beta frequencies was analyzed. The obtained results are informative in the context of state-dependent information processing. We were able to replicate two well-known load-dependent effects: the frontal-midline theta increase during the task and the decrease of pre-stimulus DMN activity. As our main finding, these two measures seem to depend on each other as the significant negative correlations at frontal-midline channels suggested. Thus, suppressed pre-stimulus DMN levels facilitated later task related frontal midline theta increases. In general, based on previous findings that neuronal coupling in different frequency bands may underlie distinct functions in WM retention, our results suggest that processes reflected by spectral oscillations during retention seem not only to be "online" synchronized with activity in different attention-related networks but are also modulated by activity in these networks during preparation intervals.
    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 05/2015; 9. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00111 · 3.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The distinctions between theta and alpha, or between beta and gamma, may not therefore be strong or clear and can contribute to inconsistencies in the research findings. Finally, it is also important to note that the traditional bandwidths are quite broad, and evidence suggests that each one contains more than one narrower bandwidth that may have different functions (Michels et al., 2010; Vogel, Broverman, & Klaiber, 1968; Williams & Gruzelier, 2001); traditionally operationalized theta, alpha, beta, and gamma oscillations can all serve different purposes. Given this background information regarding the most common biological variables studied in hypnosis research, we now discuss and summarize the key conclusions that can be drawn from the available research on biological correlates of hypnotic responding, citing the reviews and specific articles that support each one. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Evidence supports the efficacy of hypnotic treatments, but there remain many unresolved questions regarding how hypnosis produces its beneficial effects. Most theoretical models focus more or less on biological, psychological, and social factors. This scoping review summarizes the empirical findings regarding the associations between specific factors in each of these domains and response to hypnosis. The findings indicate that (a) no single factor appears primary, (b) different factors may contribute more or less to outcomes in different subsets of individuals or for different conditions, and (c) comprehensive models of hypnosis that incorporate factors from all 3 domains may ultimately prove to be more useful than more restrictive models that focus on just 1 or a very few factors.
    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 04/2015; 63(1):34-75. DOI:10.1080/00207144.2014.961875 · 1.38 Impact Factor
Show more