10 Simple Rules for a Supportive Lab Environment.

The transition to principal investigator (PI), or lab leader, can be challenging, partially due to the need to fulfil new managerial and leadership responsibilities. One key aspect of this role, which is often not explicitly discussed, is creating a supportive lab environment. Here, we present ten simple rules to guide the new PI in the development of their own positive and thriving lab atmosphere. These rules were written and voted on collaboratively, by the students and mentees of Professor Mark Stokes, who inspired this piece.

Neural Reinstatement Tracks Spread of Attention between Object Features in Working Memory.

Attention can be allocated in working memory (WM) to select and privilege relevant content. It is unclear whether attention selects individual features or whole objects in WM. Here, we used behavioral measures, eye-tracking, and EEG to test the hypothesis that attention spreads between an object's features in WM. Twenty-six participants completed a WM task that asked them to recall the angle of one of two oriented, colored bars after a delay while EEG and eye-tracking data were collected. During the delay, an orthogonal "incidental task" cued the color of one item for a match/mismatch judgment. On congruent trials (50%), the cued item was probed for subsequent orientation recall; on incongruent trials (50%), the other memory item was probed. As predicted, selecting the color of an object in WM brought other features of the cued object into an attended state as revealed by EEG decoding, oscillatory α-power, gaze bias, and improved orientation recall performance. Together, the results show that attentional selection spreads between an object's features in WM, consistent with object-based attentional selection. Analyses of neural processing at recall revealed that the selected object was automatically compared with the probe, whether it was the target for recall or not. This provides a potential mechanism for the observed benefits of nonpredictive cueing in WM, where a selected item is prioritized for subsequent decision-making.

Attentional Control in Subclinical Anxiety and Depression: Depression Symptoms Are Associated With Deficits in Target Facilitation, Not Distractor Inhibition.

Mood and anxiety disorders are associated with deficits in attentional control involving emotive and non-emotive stimuli. Current theories focus on impaired attentional inhibition of distracting stimuli in producing these deficits. However, standard attention tasks struggle to separate distractor inhibition from target facilitation. Here, we investigate whether distractor inhibition underlies these deficits using neutral stimuli in a behavioral task specifically designed to tease apart these two attentional processes. Healthy participants performed a four-location Posner cueing paradigm and completed self-report questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms and trait anxiety. Using regression analyses, we found no relationship between distractor inhibition and mood symptoms or trait anxiety. However, we find a relationship between target facilitation and depression. Specifically, higher depressive symptoms were associated with reduced target facilitation in a task-version in which the target location repeated over a block of trials. We suggest this may relate to findings previously linking depression with deficits in predictive coding in clinical populations.

Sex chromosome aneuploidies.

Sex chromosome aneuploidies comprise a relatively common group of chromosome disorders characterized by the loss or gain of one or more sex chromosomes. We discuss five of the better-known sex aneuploidies: Turner syndrome (XO), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), trisomy X (XXX), XYY, and XXYY. Despite their prevalence in the general population, these disorders are underdiagnosed and the specific genetic mechanisms underlying their phenotypes are poorly understood. Although there is considerable variation between them in terms of associated functional impairment, each disorder has a characteristic physical, cognitive, and neurologic profile. The most common cause of sex chromosome aneuploidies is nondisjunction, which can occur during meiosis or during the early stages of postzygotic development. The loss or gain of genetic material can affect all daughter cells or it may be partial, leading to tissue mosaicism. In both typical and atypical sex chromosome karyotypes, there is random inactivation of all but one X chromosome. The mechanisms by which a phenotype results from sex chromosome aneuploidies are twofold: dosage imbalance arising from a small number of genes that escape inactivation, and their endocrinologic consequences.

Cognitive, behavioral, and neural consequences of sex chromosome aneuploidy.

The X chromosome has played a critical role in the development of sexually selected characteristics for over 300 million years, and during that time it has accumulated a disproportionate number of genes concerned with mental functions. There are relatively specific effects of X-linked genes on social cognition, language, emotional regulation, visuospatial, and numerical skills. Many human X-linked genes outside the X-Y pairing pseudoautosomal regions escape X-inactivation. Dosage differences in the expression of such genes (which constitute at least 15% of the total) are likely to play an important role in male-female neural differentiation, and in cognitive deficits and behavioral characteristics, particularly in the realm of social communication, that are associated with sex chromosome aneuploidies. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Distinct Mechanisms for Distractor Suppression and Target Facilitation.

It is well established that preparatory attention improves processing of task-relevant stimuli. Although it is often more important to ignore task-irrelevant stimuli, comparatively little is known about preparatory attentional mechanisms for inhibiting expected distractions. Here, we establish that distractor inhibition is not under the same top-down control as target facilitation. Using a variant of the Posner paradigm, participants were cued to either the location of a target stimulus, the location of a distractor, or were provided no predictive information. In Experiment 1, we found that participants were able to use target-relevant cues to facilitate target processing in both blocked and flexible conditions, but distractor cueing was only effective in the blocked version of the task. In Experiment 2, we replicate these findings in a larger sample and leveraged the additional statistical power to perform individual differences analyses to tease apart potential underlying mechanisms. We found no evidence for a correlation between these two types of benefit, suggesting that flexible target cueing and distractor suppression depend on distinct cognitive mechanisms. In Experiment 3, we use EEG to show that preparatory distractor suppression is associated with a diminished P1, but we found no evidence to suggest that this effect was mediated by top-down control of oscillatory activity in the alpha band (8-12 Hz). We conclude that flexible top-down mechanisms of cognitive control are specialized for target-related attention, whereas distractor suppression only emerges when the predictive information can be derived directly from experience. This is consistent with a predictive coding model of expectation suppression. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: If you were told to ignore a white bear, you might find it quite difficult. Holding something in working memory is thought to automatically facilitate feature processing, even if doing so is detrimental to the current task. Despite this paradox, it is often assumed that distractor suppression is controlled via similar top-down mechanisms of attention that prepare brain areas for target enhancement. In particular, low-frequency oscillations in visual cortex appear especially well suited for gating task-irrelevant information. We describe the results of a series of studies exploring distractor suppression and challenge this popular notion. We draw on behavioral and EEG evidence to show that selective distractor suppression operates via an alternative mechanism, such as expectation suppression within a predictive coding framework.