The relation between implicit statistical learning and proactivity as revealed by EEG

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 15787 - 16
• Main Authors: Sznabel, Dorota, Land, Rüdiger, Kopp, Bruno, Kral, Andrej
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 22.09.2023; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 631/378; 631/378/1595; 631/378/2649; Cognitive ability; Cortex (cingulate); Cortex (parietal); Explicit knowledge; Humanities and Social Sciences; Learning; multidisciplinary; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Statistics
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-42116-y

Environmental events often occur on a probabilistic basis but can sometimes be predicted based on specific cues and thus approached proactively. Incidental statistical learning enables the acquisition of knowledge about probabilistic cue-target contingencies. However, the neural mechanisms of statistical learning about contingencies (SL C ), the required conditions for successful learning, and the role of implicit processes in the resultant proactive behavior are still debated. We examined changes in behavior and cortical activity during an SL C task in which subjects responded to visual targets. Unbeknown to them, there were three types of target cues associated with high-, low-, and zero target probabilities. About half of the subjects spontaneously gained explicit knowledge about the contingencies (contingency-aware group), and only they showed evidence of proactivity: shortened response times to predictable targets and enhanced event-related brain responses (cue-evoked P300 and contingent negative variation, CNV) to high probability cues. The behavioral and brain responses were strictly associated on a single-trial basis. Source reconstruction of the brain responses revealed activation of fronto-parietal brain regions associated with cognitive control, particularly the anterior cingulate cortex and precuneus. We also found neural correlates of SL C in the contingency-unaware group, but these were restricted to post-target latencies and visual association areas. Our results document a qualitative difference between explicit and implicit learning processes and suggest that in certain conditions, proactivity may require explicit knowledge about contingencies.