Negative feedback after an action in a cognitive task can lead to devaluing that action on future trials as well as to more cautious responding when encountering that same choice again. These phenomena have been explored in the past by reinforcement learning theories and cognitive control accounts, respectively. Yet, how cognitive control interacts with value updating to give rise to adequate adaptations under uncertainty is less clear. In this fMRI study, we investigated cognitive control-based behavioral adjustments during a probabilistic reinforcement learning task and studied their influence on performance in a later test phase in which the learned value of items is tested. We provide support for the idea that functionally relevant and memory-reliant behavioral adjustments in the form of post-error slowing during reinforcement learning are associated with test performance. Adjusting response speed after negative feedback was correlated with BOLD activity in right inferior frontal gyrus and bilateral middle occipital cortex during the event of receiving the feedback. Bilateral middle occipital cortex activity overlapped partly with activity reflecting feedback deviance from expectations as measured by unsigned prediction error. These results suggest that cognitive control and feature processing cortical regions interact to implement feedback-congruent adaptations beneficial to learning.

Limitations in the performance of working memory (WM) tasks have been characterized in terms of the number of items retained (capacity) and in terms of the precision with which the information is retained. The neural mechanisms behind these limitations are still unclear. Here we used a biological constrained computational model to study the capacity and precision of visuospatial WM. The model consists of two connected networks of spiking neurons. One network is responsible for storage of information. The other provides a nonselective excitatory input to the storage network. Simulations showed that this excitation boost could temporarily increase storage capacity but also predicted that this would be associated with a decrease in precision of the memory. This prediction was subsequently tested in a behavioral (38 participants) and fMRI (22 participants) experiment. The behavioral results confirmed the trade-off effect, and the fMRI results suggest that a frontal region might be engaged in the trial-by-trial control of WM performance. The average effects were small, but individuals differed in the amount of trade-off, and these differences correlated with the frontal activation. These results support a two-module model of WM where performance is determined both by storage capacity and by top–down influence, which can vary on a trial-by-trial basis, affecting both the capacity and precision of WM.