Preparing for the unknown: How working memory provides a link between perception and anticipated action

Abstract

What mechanisms underlie the transfer of a working memory representation into a higher-level code for guiding future actions? Electrophysiological correlates of attentional selection and motor preparation processes within working memory were investigated in two retrospective cuing tasks. In the first experiment, participants stored the orientation and location of a grating. Subsequent feature cues (selective vs. neutral) indicated which feature would be the target for later report. The oscillatory response in the mu and beta frequency range with an estimated source in the sensorimotor cortex contralateral to the responding hand was used as correlate of motor preparation. Mu/beta suppression was stronger following the selective feature cues compared to the neutral cue, demonstrating that purely feature-based selection is sufficient to form a prospective motor plan. In the second experiment, another retrospective cue was included to study whether knowledge of the task at hand is necessary to initiate motor preparation. Following the feature cue, participants were cued to either compare the stored feature(s) to a probe stimulus (recognition task) or to adjust the memory probe to match the target feature (continuous report task). An analogous suppression of mu oscillations was observed following a selective feature cue, even ahead of task specification. Further, a subsequent selective task cue again elicited a mu/beta suppression, which was stronger after a continuous report task cue. This indicates that working memory is able to flexibly store different types of information in higher-level mental codes to provide optimal prerequisites for all required action possibilities. Highlights* Selectively cueing features results in an overall performance benefit * Feature-based attention is sufficient to form a prospective motor plan * Prospective motor preparation can be initiated ahead of task specification * Retro-active task specification leads to forming of higher-level action codes * Different tasks requirements result in different prospective action plans