A distributed, frontoparietal “multiple-demand” (MD) network is involved in tasks of many different kinds. Integrated activity across this network may be needed to bind together the multiple features of a mental control program (Duncan, 2013). Previous data suggest that, especially with low cognitive load, there may be some differentiation between MD regions (e.g., anterior vs. posterior regions of lateral frontal cortex), but with increasing load, there is progressive recruitment of the entire network. Differentiation may reflect preferential access to different task features, whereas co-recruitment may reflect information exchange and integration. To examine these patterns, we used manipulations of complexity, time pressure, and reward while participants solved a spatial maze. Complexity was manipulated by combining two simple tasks. Time pressure was added by fading away the maze during route planning, and on some of these trials, there was the further possibility of a substantial reward. Simple tasks evoked activity only in posterior MD regions, including posterior lateral frontal cortex, pre-supplementary motor area/anterior cingulate, and intraparietal sulcus. With increasing complexity, time pressure, and reward, increases in activity were broadly distributed across the MD network, though with quantitative variations. Across the MD network, the results show a degree of functional differentiation, especially at low load, but strong co-recruitment with increased challenge or incentive.

How is the processing of task information organized in the brain? Many views of brain function emphasize modularity, with different regions specialized for processing different types of information. However, recent accounts also highlight flexibility, pointing especially to the highly consistent pattern of frontoparietal activation across many tasks. Although early insights from functional imaging were based on overall activation levels during different cognitive operations, in the last decade many researchers have used multivoxel pattern analyses to interrogate the representational content of activations, mapping out the brain regions that make particular stimulus, rule, or response distinctions. Here, we drew on 100 searchlight decoding analyses from 57 published papers to characterize the information coded in different brain networks. The outcome was highly structured. Visual, auditory, and motor networks predominantly (but not exclusively) coded visual, auditory, and motor information, respectively. By contrast, the frontoparietal multiple-demand network was characterized by domain generality, coding visual, auditory, motor, and rule information. The contribution of the default mode network and voxels elsewhere was minor. The data suggest a balanced picture of brain organization in which sensory and motor networks are relatively specialized for information in their own domain, whereas a specific frontoparietal network acts as a domain-general “core” with the capacity to code many different aspects of a task.

A critical question for neuropsychology is how complex brain networks react to damage. Here, we address this question for the well-known executive control or multiple-demand (MD) system, a fronto-parietal network showing increased activity with many different kinds of cognitive demand, including standard tests of fluid intelligence. Using fMRI, we ask how focal frontal lobe damage affects MD activity during a standard fluid intelligence task. Despite poor behavioral performance, frontal patients showed increased fronto-parietal activity relative to controls. The activation difference was not accounted for by difference in IQ. Moreover, rather than specific focus on perilesional or contralesional cortex, additional recruitment was distributed throughout the MD regions and surrounding cortex and included parietal MD regions distant from the injury. The data suggest that, following local frontal lobe damage, there is a global compensatory recruitment of an adaptive and integrated fronto-parietal network.

In this study, we explored the neural correlates of perceptual awareness during a masked face detection task. To assess awareness more precisely than in previous studies, participants employed a 4-point scale to rate subjective visibility. An event-related fMRI and a high-density ERP study were carried out. Imaging data showed that conscious face detection was linked to activation of fusiform and occipital face areas. Frontal and parietal regions, including the pre-SMA, inferior frontal sulcus, anterior insula/frontal operculum, and intraparietal sulcus, also responded strongly when faces were consciously perceived. In contrast, no brain area showed face-selective activity when participants reported no impression of a face. ERP results showed that conscious face detection was associated with enhanced N170 and also with the presence of a second negativity around 300 msec and a slow positivity around 415 msec. Again, face-related activity was absent when faces were not consciously perceived. We suggest that, under conditions of backward masking, ventral stream and fronto-parietal regions show similar, strong links of face-related activity to conscious perception and stress the importance of a detailed assessment of awareness to examine activity related to unseen stimulus events.

Severe capacity limits, closely associated with fluid intelligence, arise in learning and use of new task rules. We used fMRI to investigate these limits in a series of multirule tasks involving different stimuli, rules, and response keys. Data were analyzed both during presentation of instructions and during later task execution. Between tasks, we manipulated the number of rules specified in task instructions, and within tasks, we manipulated the number of rules operative in each trial block. Replicating previous results, rule failures were strongly predicted by fluid intelligence and increased with the number of operative rules. In fMRI data, analyses of the instruction period showed that the bilateral inferior frontal sulcus, intraparietal sulcus, and presupplementary motor area were phasically active with presentation of each new rule. In a broader range of frontal and parietal regions, baseline activity gradually increased as successive rules were instructed. During task performance, we observed contrasting fronto-parietal patterns of sustained (block-related) and transient (trial-related) activity. Block, but not trial, activity showed effects of task complexity. We suggest that, as a new task is learned, a fronto-parietal representation of relevant rules and facts is assembled for future control of behavior. Capacity limits in learning and executing new rules, and their association with fluid intelligence, may be mediated by this load-sensitive fronto-parietal network.

The pFC plays a key role in flexible, context-specific decision making. One proposal [Machens, C. K., Romo, R., & Brody, C. D. Flexible control of mutual inhibition: A neural model of two-interval discrimination. Science, 307, 1121–1124, 2005] is that prefrontal cells may be dynamically organized into opponent coding circuits, with competitive groups of cells coding opposite behavioral decisions. Here, we show evidence for extensive, temporally evolving opponent organization in the monkey pFC during a cued target detection task. More than a half of all randomly selected cells discriminated stimulus category in this task. The largest set showed target-positive activity, with the strongest responses to the current target, intermediate activity for a nontarget that was a target on other trials, and lowest activity for nontargets never associated with the target category. Second most frequent was a reverse, antitarget pattern. In the ventrolateral frontal cortex, opponent organization was strongly established in phasic responses at stimulus onset; later, such activity was widely spread across dorsolateral and ventrolateral sites. Task-specific organization into opponent cell groups may be a general feature of prefrontal decision making.

An important component of perception, attention, and memory is the structuring of information into subsets (“objects”), which allows some parts to be considered together but kept separate from others. Portions of the posterior parietal lobe respond proportionally to the number of objects in the scope of attention and short-term memory, up to a capacity limit of around four, suggesting they have a role in this important process. This study investigates the relationship of discrete object representation to other parietal functions. Two experiments and two supplementary analyses were conducted to evaluate responsivity in parietal regions to the number of objects, the number of spatial locations, attention switching, and general task difficulty. Using transparent motion, it was found that a posterior and inferior parietal response to multiple objects persists even in the absence of a change in visual extent or the number of spatial locations. In a monitoring task, it was found that attention switching (or task difficulty) and object representation have distinct neural signatures, with the former showing greater recruitment of an anterior and lateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS) region, but the latter in a posterior and lateral region. A dissociation was also seen between selectivity for object load across tasks in the inferior IPS and feature or object-related memory load in the superior IPS.