Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 25;7:e35854. doi: 10.7554/eLife.35854

Figure 1. Learning-dependent changes in behavior and brain activation.

(a) Stimuli: Example stimuli comprising radial and concentric Glass patterns. Stimuli are shown for the Signal in noise task (25% signal, spiral angle 0° for radial and 90° for concentric) and the Feature-differences task version (100% signal, spiral angle 38° for radial and 52° for concentric). Prototype stimuli (100% signal, spiral angle 0° for radial and 90° for concentric) are shown for illustration purposes only. (b) Behavioral improvement during training: mean d’ per training run normalized to d’ in the first run. Data were fitted with a logarithmic function; error bars indicate standard error of the mean across participants. The trend of higher performance in the SN than the FD task was not statistically significant. No significant improvement was observed for a no-training control group who did not receive training in between test sessions (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). (c) Whole-brain covariance analyses (cluster threshold corrected, p<0.05) with either learning rate (magenta) or Δd’ (blue) on fMRI data (first two runs vs. last two runs) that were pooled across the two tasks showed positive significant clusters in the posterior occipito-temporal cortex. Activations are shown on the cortical surface of the right hemisphere (sulci are shown in dark grey, gyri in light grey). The color bar indicates Pearson’s r correlation values. Figure 1—figure supplement 3 illustrates the relationship between BOLD change extracted from this region and measures of behavioral improvement (learning rate, Δd’) per task. Significant activations were observed in bilateral occipito-temporal cortex and fronto-parietal regions (Figure 1—source data 1). Further, GLM analysis of the fMRI data across training runs showed significant changes in occipito-temporal BOLD for both tasks (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). For all figures, data are included for the same training duration across participants (i.e. seven runs), as several participants (n = 9) were missing data from the eighth run. Including data from participants that were trained for an additional eighth run (Figure 1—figure supplement 4a) showed similar results as the analysis including seven training runs from all participants; that is, the whole brain covariance analysis of BOLD change with behavioural improvement showed similar activation maps (Figure 1—figure supplement 4b,c).

Figure 1—source data 1. Tables for whole brain GLM covariance analysis of BOLD with behavioral improvement.
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.35854.008

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. No training control group.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

We tested a no-training control group (n = 8) who did not receive training in between two test sessions on consecutive days. We found no significant improvement in participant performance (as measured by d’) for neither task (main effect of Session: F(1,6)= 1.13, p=0.33; Task x Session interaction: F(1,6)=0.0003, p=0.99).
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. BOLD changes during training.

Figure 1—figure supplement 2.

GLM analysis of the fMRI data across all training runs within the MRS mask showed significant BOLD changes in occipito-temporal cortex during training across tasks. Bar-plots show BOLD signal (percent signal change) in occipito-temporal cortex across runs; mean data are plotted during training: early (first two training runs), middle (middle three training runs), late (last two training runs) for the two tasks; error bars indicate standard error of the mean across participants.
Figure 1—figure supplement 3. Relating BOLD change to behavioral improvement.

Figure 1—figure supplement 3.

We extracted BOLD from voxel clusters in occipito-temporal region that showed significant correlations of behavioral change with BOLD change (i.e. covariance analysis, Figure 1c) and plotted BOLD change (late vs. early training runs) against behavioral improvement (learning rate, Δd’) across participants for each task (SN, FD). These plots show similar learning dependent changes in behavioral performance and fMRI activation during training in both learning tasks. Note, that these plots are for illustration purposes only; no further statistics were conducted on these signals as the fMRI activations were derived from a whole-brain covariance analysis of BOLD with behavioral improvement (Figure 1c).
Figure 1—figure supplement 4. Behavior and brain imaging analyses including data from the eighth training run.

Figure 1—figure supplement 4.

We included data from participants that were trained for an additional eighth run in the analyses for both the behavioral and brain imaging data. All analyses showed similar results, as the analyses including seven training runs from all participants (Figure 1b,c) (a) Behavioral improvement during training: mean d’ per training run normalized to d’ in the first run. Data were fitted with a logarithmic function; error bars indicate standard error of the mean across participants. No significant differences between the two tasks were observed for learning rate (t(34)=0.09, p=0.929) nor Δd’ (t(34)=0.14, p=0.886). (b) Whole-brain covariance analyses with either learning rate (purple) or Δd’ (blue) on fMRI data that were pooled across the two tasks showed positive significant clusters in the posterior occipito-temporal cortex. Activations are shown on the cortical surface of the right hemisphere (sulci are shown in dark grey, gyri in light grey). The color bar indicates Pearson’s r correlation values. (c) We then extracted BOLD from the occipito-temporal region revealed by the covariate analysis and plotted BOLD change against behavioral improvement (learning rate, Δd’) across participants for each task (SN, FD). Note, that these plots are for illustration purposes only; no further statistics were conducted on these signals as the fMRI activations were derived from a whole-brain covariance analysis of BOLD with behavioral improvement (Figure 1—figure supplement 4b).