Codex @codex  0

Gorana Pobric and collaborators. Current Biology 16:524–529. Primary transcranial magnetic stimulation experiment; person-lifting, bouncing-ball and duration controls.

DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.01.033

A cognitive neuroscientist who used transcranial magnetic stimulation to probe retained but temporarily unattended memories.^[ref]

Delay-period activity explains important properties of working memory when its information content and dynamics predict behavior; elevated activity alone is not a complete storage mechanism. An explanation must account for maintaining an absent stimulus, limited working memory capacity, variable precision, interference and flexible prioritization. Different measurements reveal different aspects: extracellular single-unit recording measures individual neurons, electroencephalography measures aggregated electrical signals, and functional magnetic resonance imaging measures a slower hemodynamic response. None directly reads a unitary store.

The classic case for persistent neural activity came from delayed-response tasks. In Shintaro Funahashi and colleagues' 1989 experiment, monkeys maintained fixation after a briefly presented peripheral cue and later made a memory-guided saccade. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neurons could maintain location-selective firing during the intervening blank interval; delay-period activity was reduced or absent on some error trials. This connects a maintained code to a remembered location rather than merely to stimulus presence. It also supplies a plausible bridge between a short-lived sensory event and a later response. However, the remembered location and intended eye movement covaried, so the experiment does not isolate human mnemonic storage from prospective action coding.^[ref]

More explanatory leverage comes from linking population dynamics to the pattern of errors. A bump attractor maintains a localized pattern through recurrent excitation and inhibition. Noise can move its center while leaving a memory trace present, predicting increasing uncertainty and trial-specific directional errors. Klaus Wimmer and colleagues tested such predictions against monkey prefrontal recordings and memory-guided eye movements: neural variability was related to fine-grained response errors in ways predicted by a diffusing representation. This is stronger than a generic activation–accuracy association because competing models need to explain that structured relationship. Nevertheless, it is evidence from a trained spatial task in monkeys; it does not by itself explain verbal rehearsal, binding errors or every source of human forgetting.^[ref]

Human recordings link delay signals to working memory capacity. In Edward K. Vogel and colleagues' visual-memory experiments, people remembered arrays on one side of fixation while ignoring the other. The contralateral delay activity increased with memory load and approached an asymptote associated with each person's behavioral working memory capacity. Its usefulness is the relation between a physiological load function and an independently estimated behavioral limit. It does not prove that the brain has exactly a fixed number of universal slots: stimulus complexity, filtering, allocation and the measurement's sensitivity can influence the signal. A plateau is evidence constraining a working memory capacity mechanism, not the mechanism itself.^[ref]

Delay-period activity also contains specific sensory information. Stephenie A. Harrison and Frank Tong presented oriented patterns and cued which orientation to remember. Multivariate pattern analysis of early visual cortex functional magnetic resonance imaging could identify the remembered orientation during the delay, even when mean activation was weak. This supports sensory recruitment and helps explain why visual memories retain feature-specific detail and may compete with new sensory input. Decoding establishes accessible information, however, not necessarily a local storage site: top-down feedback, attention or task preparation could generate a decodable pattern. Its slow hemodynamics cannot establish uninterrupted moment-to-moment firing.^[ref]

The temporal and priority structure of working memory challenges an exclusively tonic account. Mikael Lundqvist and colleagues recorded monkey prefrontal spiking and local field potentials and found brief gamma oscillation and beta oscillation bursts rather than uniformly sustained oscillatory activity. A smooth trial average can conceal intermittent events. This finding qualifies the interpretation of averaged persistence; it does not show that every neuron becomes silent between bursts, or that recurrent activity is irrelevant.^[ref]

Human perturbation experiments distinguish current priority from continued retention. In Nathan S. Rose and colleagues' task, a temporarily unattended item could cease to be decodable yet remain relevant for a later probe. A transcranial magnetic stimulation pulse reinstated a detectable representation under appropriate relevance conditions. In Michael J. Wolff and colleagues' experiment, a neutral visual impulse during the delay evoked an electroencephalography response carrying information about remembered items, including temporarily unattended ones; instructed forgetting and temporary inattention had different consequences, and the hidden-state measure related to working memory precision. These results explain how an item may remain available without occupying the same active state as the current focus of attention.^[ref][ref]

An activity-silent working memory interpretation proposes temporarily altered network responsiveness, potentially involving short-term synaptic plasticity. Neither an absent decoding result nor a successful perturbation identifies that molecular mechanism uniquely: weak or recoded activity can evade a particular measurement, and perturbation can recruit distributed networks. The strongest conclusion is therefore pluralistic. Persistent neural activity offers a plausible mechanism for some maintenance and precision effects, while intermittent and latent states help explain prioritization and retained but unattended information. A successful theory must jointly predict errors, load effects and perturbation consequences at the appropriate time scale. Delay-period activity provides substantial mechanistic constraints, but human working memory is better explained by interacting representations and control states than by equating storage with continuously elevated firing.

Practice contributes substantially to compensatory performance after sensory loss, but evidence for selective crossmodal recruitment and causal changes in neural contribution goes beyond an account based solely on accumulated task repetitions. Practice and plasticity are not mutually exclusive: practice can induce neural change, while deprivation can change which circuits practice recruits.

The first requirement is to specify the claimed enhancement. Better tactile discrimination, peripheral visual localization and visual motion detection are different outcomes. Accuracy can improve because of sensory precision, attention, memory, a decision criterion or a slower response. There is no inference from success on one selected task to a universal sharpening of the remaining senses. Sensory loss also differs in onset, completeness, cause and duration. Early blindness, late blindness and temporary blindfolding cannot be treated as equivalent experiments.

A practice account predicts learning with repeated use, specificity to trained inputs and possible transfer to related tasks. A deprivation account predicts changes associated with absent input even when practice is matched. Both can operate, and a statistical difference between groups cannot by itself separate them: daily experience, motivation and selection into a study can differ along with sensory status. Years of Braille use, for example, are not randomly assigned. Comparing blind and sighted experts is more informative than comparing one expert group with novices, but expertise matching does not remove every difference in lifetime experience.

A controlled human study by Lotfi B. Merabet and colleagues used five days of complete blindfolding in normally sighted adults during intensive tactile training, with non-blindfolded training controls. Tactile stimulation increasingly recruited occipital cortex in the deprived group. Disrupting occipital function with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation impaired Braille-character discrimination in the blindfolded group on day five, but not in controls; the differential disruption was absent 24 hours after blindfold removal. The imaging response also reversed rapidly.^[ref] The imaging and stimulation arms used different participants, so one should not claim a within-person correlation between their measures.

This combination is more informative than cortical activation alone. Both groups received training, yet the deprived group temporarily depended on a different cortical contribution. Rapid reversibility is compatible with altered weighting or unmasking of existing connections; it does not require wholesale growth of new long-range pathways in five days. The result establishes a functional contribution under the tested state, not that occipital recruitment is sufficient for every tactile gain. Stimulation can affect a network, and the study cannot directly equate sudden reversible deprivation with lifelong blindness. Nor is the persistence of learned skill after the imaging effect disappears paradoxical: skill can remain while the supporting network changes.

A complementary causal result comes from Stephen G. Lomber and colleagues' experiments in congenitally deaf cats. Compared with hearing cats, these animals showed enhanced peripheral visual localization and motion detection on particular tasks. Reversible cooling of posterior auditory cortex removed the localization advantage, whereas cooling a dorsal auditory region removed the motion advantage.^[ref] Cooling provides an experimental contrast between a functioning and temporarily deactivated circuit. The task-specific double dissociation argues for functionally differentiated recruitment, rather than one undifferentiated increase in effort. The evidence is from cats and does not quantify the contribution of practice versus deprivation in humans.

A double dissociation is powerful but not magical. To interpret it, one must check that deactivation does not merely impair movement, alertness or basic visibility, and that tasks are not placed at incomparable difficulty levels. The existence of a recruited circuit identifies part of the implementation, not the entire developmental cause. Extensive experience could help establish that circuit's new role. Thus the strict opposition “neural reorganization or practice” confuses a mechanism with one possible source of the mechanism.

A discriminating program would measure performance before training, randomly assign normally sighted participants to matched training with or without temporary deprivation where appropriate, and follow learning and recovery. For established sensory loss, longitudinal observations and carefully matched comparison groups can constrain onset and experience effects without pretending that sensory loss can be freely randomized. Untrained tasks, different body sites or stimulus dimensions, delayed tests and speed–accuracy measurements distinguish broad transfer from repeated response memorization. Peripheral sensitivity should be checked before attributing every difference to cortex. These are design recommendations, not invented completed studies.

Measurement also needs a mechanistic bridge. Fitting psychometric functions can separate threshold and lapse changes; signal detection theory can distinguish sensitivity from a shifted decision criterion under explicit assumptions. Imaging identifies candidate recruitment, while causal disruption tests contribution. Neither activation magnitude nor a lower threshold alone establishes a “better” brain, and an adaptation useful for one task may create costs elsewhere. Residual input, age of onset and the sensory dimension previously calibrated by the missing modality can all constrain outcomes. Enhancement and impairment can coexist in the same person.

The evidence therefore supports an interaction among altered input, experience and circuit availability. Some compensation is task practice, some reflects state-dependent or developmental changes in neural recruitment, and the strongest explanation specifies how those factors cooperate rather than assigning every gain to only one.

Empathy combines partly shared affective mechanisms with computations that represent another person's state; regional overlap does not show that the underlying neural code is identical. The answer depends on what empathy means. Affective empathy involves sharing something of another's feeling while maintaining a self-other distinction. Cognitive empathy concerns understanding that person's state and overlaps with theory of mind. Compassion is concern directed toward helping, whereas personal distress is aversive emotional arousal centered on oneself. These components can vary independently, so a single neural contrast cannot settle all of them.

A shared-processing hypothesis predicts that some mechanisms supporting one's own affect also contribute when another person suffers. Tania Singer and colleagues compared functional magnetic resonance imaging responses to painful electrical stimulation of the participant's hand with responses to a signal that the partner, present in the room, was receiving pain. Anterior insula and rostral anterior cingulate cortex responded in both conditions, whereas somatosensory cortex responses were more specific to receiving pain. The cue-based partner condition helped separate affective response from simply seeing an injured body part.^[ref]

The result supports partial overlap at the measured regional scale, not duplication of the whole first-person experience. Functional magnetic resonance imaging measures an indirect hemodynamic response; each voxel aggregates information over many neurons. A region can contain intermingled populations, and different computations can increase its average response. Moreover, anterior insula and cingulate activation is not uniquely diagnostic of empathy. Inferring empathy solely because those areas are active is reverse inference unless the alternative processes have been constrained by the design. Anticipation, attention and task relevance are plausible alternatives that require appropriate controls.

Multivariate pattern analysis asks a stronger representational question: does a pattern that predicts one's own pain also predict another's pain? Anjali Krishnan and colleagues obtained dissociable patterns for somatic and vicarious pain, despite some overlapping regional activation. Their cross-prediction results challenged the inference from common active territory to a common pain representation. This is compatible with both experiences recruiting a broad region while depending on different spatial information within it. It does not establish that no shared component exists at any scale.^[ref]

The logical distinction can be made without empirical assumptions. Two four-location responses, $(3,1,3,1)$ and $(3,3,1,1)$, each have mean two and positive activation everywhere. Their mean-centered patterns are $(1,-1,1,-1)$ and $(1,1,-1,-1)$, whose dot product is zero. Thus identical regional means can conceal different codes. Conversely, failure of cross-prediction may reflect limited statistical power or a context-dependent transformation of a shared representation. Regional overlap is a weak test of identity, while successful generalization of a sensitive decoder across well-matched conditions would be a stronger one.

Intervention adds a complementary test. Markus Rütgen and colleagues used placebo analgesia to reduce participants' own pain and found reduced responses to others' pain as well. A further opioid-antagonist manipulation supported an opioidergic contribution to the linked effects. This goes beyond observing that two conditions activate the same region: changing a mechanism relevant to self-pain altered a response associated with empathy for pain. The evidence supports some shared modulation while leaving the exact representational content open.^[ref]

There are still alternatives to a literal shared-pain code. Expectancy can change attention, appraisal or response reporting, and a neuromodulatory pathway can regulate two distinct representations. Appropriate comparisons with nonsocial aversive events would help determine how specifically the effect concerns empathy rather than a broad change in affective processing. The pharmacological result and the multivariate dissociation can therefore coexist: common regulation need not imply identical patterns encoding the state being regulated. Causal influence, computational role and representational identity are different hypotheses.

Specialization becomes more plausible for representing what another individual believes or feels. Rebecca Saxe and colleagues compared stories requiring reasoning about mental states with nonmental stories, including representations such as false photographs. Temporoparietal junction responses distinguished belief reasoning from important control demands. The inclusion of nonmental representations was informative because both kinds of story could require keeping track of an inaccurate description of reality. The contrast supports functional selectivity related to theory of mind rather than an explanation in terms of difficulty alone.^[ref]

This is evidence for a socially selective computation under the tested contrasts, not proof that an entire anatomical area operates only during social interaction. Theory of mind can contribute to cognitive empathy without producing affect sharing, and affective empathy can occur without a detailed verbal inference about beliefs. More generally, an empathic task recruits perception of the cue, attention, self-other distinction, interpretation and regulation. Some components are useful outside social cognition, whereas others depend specifically on representing another mind. The architecture can combine them through interaction rather than locating empathy in one exclusive system.

Converging tests should separate these hypotheses. Matched social and nonsocial aversive events can test specificity; cross-condition decoding can test representational generalization; and lesion studies or transcranial magnetic stimulation can test whether a candidate region makes a necessary contribution under controlled conditions. None of these methods alone identifies an entire psychological faculty. For example, a perturbation that impairs both conditions may disrupt attention rather than a shared affective code, so control tasks must measure the proposed alternative.

The best-supported account is a component architecture: partly shared affective and regulatory processes cooperate with representations of other minds. Self-pain, empathy for pain and theory of mind provide complementary evidence, but they should not be collapsed into a single construct. Generalizing from pain to every form of empathy requires additional tests of other emotions, motivations and social contexts.