Differential neural activity patterns for spatial relations in humans: a MEG study
Children learn the words for above–below relations earlier than for left–right relations, despite treating these equally well in a simple visual categorization task. Even as adults—conflicts in congruency, such as when a stimulus is depicted in a spatially incongruent manner with respect to salient global cues—can be challenging. Here we investigated the neural correlates of encoding and maintaining in working memory above–below and left–right relational planes in 12 adults using magnetoencephalography in order to discover whether above–below relations are represented by the brain differently than left–right relations. Adults performed perfectly on the task behaviorally, so any differences in neural activity were attributed to the stimuli’s cognitive attributes. In comparing above–below to left–right relations during stimulus encoding, we found the greatest differences in neural activity in areas associated with space and movement. In comparing congruent to incongruent trials, we found the greatest differential activity in premotor areas. For both contrasts, brain areas involved in the encoding phase were also involved in the maintenance phase, which provides evidence that those brain areas are particularly important in representing the relational planes or congruency types throughout the trial. When comparing neural activity associated with the relational planes during working memory, additional right posterior areas were implicated, whereas the congruent-incongruent contrast implicated additional bilateral frontal and temporal areas. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis left–right relations are represented differently than above–below relations.
KeywordsLeft–right confusion MEG Congruency Relational plane Working memory Encoding
This study was partially supported by a University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship, a University of Minnesota Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship (both to NMS), NIH training Grant No. T32 HD007151, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and the McKnight Presidential Cognitive Neuroscience Chair.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human subjects/informed consent
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and the University of Minnesota. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects provided written informed consent prior to participating in the study.
- Clark EV (1980) Here’s the “Top:” nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of orientational terms. Child Dev 51:329–338Google Scholar
- Kosslyn SM, Thompson WL, Gitelman DR, Alpert NM (1998) Neural systems that encode categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: PET investigations. Psychobiology 26:333–347Google Scholar
- Mach E (1959/1897) The analysis of sensations. Open Court Publishing House, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Scott NM, Georgopoulos A, Sera M (2015a) Accessibility to relational terms aids nonverbal relational judgments. Poster presented at Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
- Semel E, Rosner SR (2003) Understanding Williams syndrome. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
- Wang L, Li X, Hsiao SS, Lenz FA, Bodner M, Zhou YD, Fuster JM (2015) Differential roles of delay-period neural activity in the monkey dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in visual-haptic crossmodal working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E214–E219. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1410130112 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar