4.8 Article

Distinct mechanisms mediate speed-accuracy adjustments in cortico-subthalamic networks

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.21481

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12024/1]
  2. European Union [655605]
  3. Parkinson Appeal UK
  4. Monument Trust
  5. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [655605] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  6. MRC [MR/N003446/1, MC_UU_12024/1, MR/N003446/2, MR/P012272/1, MC_UU_12024/5] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Medical Research Council [MR/N003446/2, MC_UU_12024/1, MR/P012272/1, MC_UU_12024/5, MR/N003446/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Rosetrees Trust [M235-CD3] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Wellcome Trust [105804/Z/14/Z] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optimal decision-making requires balancing fast but error-prone and more accurate but slower decisions through adjustments of decision thresholds. Here, we demonstrate two distinct correlates of such speed-accuracy adjustments by recording subthalamic nucleus (STN) activity and electroencephalography in 11 Parkinsons disease patients during a perceptual decision-making task; STN low-frequency oscillatory (LFO) activity (28 Hz), coupled to activity at prefrontal electrode Fz, and STN beta activity (1330 Hz) coupled to electrodes C3/C4 close to motor cortex. These two correlates differed not only in their cortical topography and spectral characteristics but also in the relative timing of recruitment and in their precise relationship with decision thresholds. Increases of STN LFO power preceding the response predicted increased thresholds only after accuracy instructions, while cue-induced reductions of STN beta power decreased thresholds irrespective of instructions. These findings indicate that distinct neural mechanisms determine whether a decision will be made in haste or with caution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available