Binding actions across scales

A year in research · 30 selected publications · five research threads

In 2021, we linked the fine-grained contents of an action to development, learning, brain state and clinical variation.

The research moved across scales: from stimulus-response features represented for a few hundred milliseconds, through oscillatory and neurochemical processes, to developmental change and the lived heterogeneity of Tourette syndrome, ADHD and alcohol-related impairment.

01 · ACTION CODES

Seeing the contents of a task set

Multivariate EEG analyses showed that a task set is activated in parallel at stimulus, response-selection and motor levels, each involving partly different brain regions.[1] During inhibition, stimulus-response representations remained stable for several hundred milliseconds, and overlapping features made it harder to decide whether to act or stop.[2] Motor-feature binding was already visible in premotor processing, before an action was executed.[3]

Catecholaminergic modulation of perception-action integration depended on prior experience, consistent with gain control acting on an already learned task structure.[4] Magnetic-resonance spectroscopy linked striatal and anterior-cingulate GABA+ to different aspects of stimulus-response binding.[5] Together, these studies connected the content described by event-coding theories to measurable neural representations and neurobiology.

In plain terms: Actions can be decomposed into representational ingredients, and those ingredients can be followed from neurochemistry to premotor brain activity.

02 · DEVELOPMENT AND FLEXIBILITY

Control changes across time - within a trial and across age

Working-memory gate opening and closing modulated several informational levels within theta activity in parallel.[6] Statistical and rule-based sequence learning relied on distinct prefrontal operations with different temporal sensitivities.[7] During task switching, motor codes progressed from superior parietal to premotor regions, illustrating a sequence of motor reprogramming.[8]

Developmental studies showed that perception-action integration changes across childhood and adolescence, while the binding of action features can mature differently from execution speed.[9,10] Fatigue selectively disrupted anticipatory attention and response recoding during cognitive flexibility.[11] Reaction-time feedback enhanced particular perceptual and central control processes rather than the whole processing cascade.[12] The relation between resting theta, task-related theta and stopping performance also changed around late childhood.[13]

In plain terms: Maturation and fatigue do not simply strengthen or weaken control; they change particular processing stages and the way those stages are coordinated.

03 · CAUSAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES

Testing mechanisms, not just observing correlations

The EEGManyLabs initiative established a collaborative route toward better powered, standardized and more reproducible EEG research.[14] Anodal stimulation of frontal cortex then provided a causal test, selectively changing conflict-related response-selection codes rather than every component of the EEG signal.[15] Resting-state analyses showed that network organization and its fluctuations differ systematically across frequency bands.[16]

A cross-species experiment found comparable multi-component behaviour in humans and pigeons and identified an avian hierarchical-processing region with functional similarities to the human inferior frontal system.[17] This result separated the computational requirement for hierarchical action from any one mammalian cortical architecture.

In plain terms: Stronger inference comes from reproducible pipelines, causal perturbation and comparisons that test whether a computation depends on a particular biological architecture.

04 · TOURETTE SYNDROME

From a motor disorder to altered perception-action organization

A neural-noise account proposed that Tourette syndrome involves altered signal variability rather than simply excessive motor output.[18] Empirical work found increased aperiodic activity during sensorimotor integration, supporting this idea while showing that the measure was not directly proportional to tic severity.[19] Adolescents with Tourette syndrome displayed a distinct oscillatory and anatomical architecture for perception-action integration.[20]

Hyperbinding and procedural hyperlearning were brought into one framework but distinguished by their time scales and contributions.[21] Somatosensory binding and urge-tic relations proved heterogeneous, arguing against a universal chain in which an urge directly causes each tic.[22,23] Machine learning identified motor-tic severity, rather than vocal phenomena, as the strongest diagnostic separator.[24] Reviews of action coding and international networks placed these findings in a broader reconceptualization and collaborative research programme.[25,26]

In plain terms: Tourette syndrome is better understood by examining how perceptions, actions, learning and neural variability are organized than by treating every tic as an isolated motor event.

05 · ALCOHOL AND ADHD

Similar behaviour can conceal different vulnerabilities

Acute alcohol altered the transitions between resting EEG microstates and impaired the automatization of complex action sequences, while hangover did not produce the same deficit.[27,28] At the same time, well-learned automatic stimulus-response associations remained surprisingly robust even under high-dose intoxication.[29]

In ADHD, the relationship between proactive theta activity and within-trial inhibition differed between presentations, showing that group differences arise from several interacting factors rather than one weak inhibitory signal.[30] Across both research areas, the important distinction was between an intact basic operation and difficulty adapting or coordinating that operation under changing demands.

In plain terms: A preserved automatic process does not rule out clinically important difficulties in preparation, learning or coordination.

What 2021 added up to

The 2021 research joined representational detail with system-level explanation. It showed how task sets and action features are encoded, how these codes change with age and state, and how clinical differences emerge from their organization. The result was a framework that treats behaviour as the outcome of coordinated processes across multiple temporal and biological scales.

Selected publications

Curated from PubMed records returned for Beste C[au] in 2021. Citation numbers in the story link to entries below. DOI links open the publisher landing page; PubMed links open the indexed record.

1. Multi-level decoding of task sets in neurophysiological data during cognitive flexibility.

Petruo V, Takacs A, Mückschel M, Hommel B, Beste C. iScience. 2021;24(12):103502.

DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103502   ·   PubMed

2. Neural dynamics of stimulus-response representations during inhibitory control.

Prochnow A, Bluschke A, Weissbach A, Münchau A, Roessner V, Mückschel M, Beste C. Journal of neurophysiology. 2021;126(2):680-692.

DOI: 10.1152/jn.00163.2021   ·   PubMed

3. Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor feature binding processes and representations.

Takacs A, Bluschke A, Kleimaker M, Münchau A, Beste C. Human brain mapping. 2021;42(5):1313-1327.

DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25295   ·   PubMed

4. Perception-Action Integration Is Modulated by the Catecholaminergic System Depending on Learning Experience.

Eggert E, Bluschke A, Takacs A, Kleimaker M, et al.. The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology. 2021;24(7):592-600.

DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyab012   ·   PubMed

5. On the functional role of striatal and anterior cingulate GABA+ in stimulus-response binding.

Takacs A, Stock AK, Kuntke P, Werner A, Beste C. Human brain mapping. 2021;42(6):1863-1878.

DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25335   ·   PubMed

6. Distinguishing Multiple Coding Levels in Theta Band Activity During Working Memory Gating Processes.

Rempel S, Colzato L, Zhang W, Wolff N, Mückschel M, Beste C. Neuroscience. 2021;478:11-23.

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.09.025   ·   PubMed

7. Neurophysiological and functional neuroanatomical coding of statistical and deterministic rule information during sequence learning.

Takács Á, Kóbor A, Kardos Z, Janacsek K, Horváth K, Beste C, Nemeth D. Human brain mapping. 2021;42(10):3182-3201.

DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25427   ·   PubMed

8. Task Switching and the Role of Motor Reprogramming in Parietal Structures.

Petruo VA, Beste C. Neuroscience. 2021;461:23-35.

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.02.030   ·   PubMed

9. Perception-action integration in young age-A cross-sectional EEG study.

Dilcher R, Beste C, Takacs A, Bluschke A, et al.. Developmental cognitive neuroscience. 2021;50:100977.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100977   ·   PubMed

10. Neurophysiology of embedded response plans: age effects in action execution but not in feature integration from preadolescence to adulthood.

Dilcher R, Jamous R, Takacs A, Tóth-Fáber E, Münchau A, Li SC, Beste C. Journal of neurophysiology. 2021;125(4):1382-1395.

DOI: 10.1152/jn.00681.2020   ·   PubMed

11. Event-related synchronization/desynchronization and functional neuroanatomical regions associated with fatigue effects on cognitive flexibility.

Yu S, Mückschel M, Beste C. Journal of neurophysiology. 2021;126(2):383-397.

DOI: 10.1152/jn.00228.2021   ·   PubMed

12. Pushing to the Limits: What Processes during Cognitive Control are Enhanced by Reaction-Time Feedback?

Prochnow A, Mückschel M, Beste C. Cerebral cortex communications. 2021;2(2):tgab027.

DOI: 10.1093/texcom/tgab027   ·   PubMed

13. The interplay of resting and inhibitory control-related theta-band activity depends on age.

Pscherer C, Bluschke A, Mückschel M, Beste C. Human brain mapping. 2021;42(12):3845-3857.

DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25469   ·   PubMed

14. #EEGManyLabs: Investigating the replicability of influential EEG experiments.

Pavlov YG, Adamian N, Appelhoff S, Arvaneh M, et al.. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior. 2021;144:213-229.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.03.013   ·   PubMed

15. Anodal tDCS modulates specific processing codes during conflict monitoring associated with superior and middle frontal cortices.

Adelhöfer N, Stock AK, Beste C. Brain structure & function. 2021;226(4):1335-1351.

DOI: 10.1007/s00429-021-02245-4   ·   PubMed

16. Resting-state EEG Dynamics Reveals Differences in Network Organization and its Fluctuation between Frequency Bands.

Zink N, Mückschel M, Beste C. Neuroscience. 2021;453:43-56.

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.11.037   ·   PubMed

17. A hierarchical processing unit for multi-component behavior in the avian brain.

Rook N, Tuff JM, Packheiser J, Güntürkün O, Beste C. iScience. 2021;24(10):103195.

DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103195   ·   PubMed

18. A neural noise account of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.

Münchau A, Colzato LS, AghajaniAfjedi A, Beste C. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2021;30:102654.

DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102654   ·   PubMed

19. Increased scale-free and aperiodic neural activity during sensorimotor integration-a novel facet in Tourette syndrome.

Adelhöfer N, Paulus T, Mückschel M, Bäumer T, et al.. Brain communications. 2021;3(4):fcab250.

DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcab250   ·   PubMed

20. Distinct Brain-Oscillatory Neuroanatomical Architecture of Perception-Action Integration in Adolescents With Tourette Syndrome.

Beste C, Mückschel M, Rauch J, Bluschke A, et al.. Biological psychiatry global open science. 2021;1(2):123-134.

DOI: 10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.04.003   ·   PubMed

21. Lower-level associations in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: Convergence between hyperbinding of stimulus and response features and procedural hyperfunctioning theories.

Takacs A, Münchau A, Nemeth D, Roessner V, Beste C. The European journal of neuroscience. 2021;54(3):5143-5160.

DOI: 10.1111/ejn.15366   ·   PubMed

22. Somatosensory perception-action binding in Tourette syndrome.

Friedrich J, Spaleck H, Schappert R, Kleimaker M, et al.. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):13388.

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92761-4   ·   PubMed

23. Inter-individual differences in urge-tic associations in Tourette syndrome.

Schubert L, Verrel J, Behm A, Bäumer T, Beste C, Münchau A. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior. 2021;143:80-91.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.06.017   ·   PubMed

24. Questioning the definition of Tourette syndrome-evidence from machine learning.

Paulus T, Schappert R, Bluschke A, Alvarez-Fischer D, et al.. Brain communications. 2021;3(4):fcab282.

DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcab282   ·   PubMed

25. Tourette syndrome as a motor disorder revisited - Evidence from action coding.

Mielke E, Takacs A, Kleimaker M, Schappert R, et al.. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2021;30:102611.

DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102611   ·   PubMed

26. Networks in the Field of Tourette Syndrome.

Kleimaker A, Kleimaker M, Behm A, Weissbach A, et al.. Frontiers in neurology. 2021;12:624858.

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.624858   ·   PubMed

27. Acute alcohol intoxication modulates the temporal dynamics of resting electroencephalography networks.

Schiller B, Heinrichs M, Beste C, Stock AK. Addiction biology. 2021;26(6):e13034.

DOI: 10.1111/adb.13034   ·   PubMed

28. Alcohol intoxication, but not hangover, differentially impairs learning and automatization of complex motor response sequences.

Opitz A, Ghin F, Hubert J, Verster JC, Beste C, Stock AK. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):12539.

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90803-5   ·   PubMed

29. Automatic aspects of response selection remain unchanged during high-dose alcohol intoxication.

Stock AK, Bensmann W, Zink N, Münchau A, Beste C. Addiction biology. 2021;26(1):e12852.

DOI: 10.1111/adb.12852   ·   PubMed

30. The dynamics of theta-related pro-active control and response inhibition processes in AD(H)D.

Adelhöfer N, Bluschke A, Roessner V, Beste C. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2021;30:102609.

DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102609   ·   PubMed