Inhibitory control, or the ability to suppress planned but inappropriate prepotent actions in the current environment, plays an important role in the control of human performance. Evidence from empirical studies utilizing a sport-specific design has shown that athletes have superior inhibitory control. However, less is known about whether this superiority might (1) still be seen in a general cognitive task without a sport-related context; (2) be modulated differentially by different sporting expertise (e.g., tennis versus swimming). Here we compared inhibitory control across tennis players, swimmers and sedentary non-athletic controls using a stop-signal task without a sport-specific design. Our primary finding showed that tennis players had shorter stop-signal reaction times (SSRTs) when compared to swimmers and sedentary controls, whereas no difference was found between swimmers and sedentary controls. Importantly, this effect was further confirmed after considering potential confounding factors (e.g., BMI, training experience, estimated levels of physical activity and VO2max), indicative of better ability to inhibit unrequired responses in tennis players. This suggests that fundamental inhibitory control in athletes can benefit from open skill training. Sport with both physical and cognitive demands may provide a potential clinical intervention for those who have difficulties in inhibitory control.

The limits of human visual short-term memory (VSTM) have been well documented, and recent neuroscientific studies suggest that VSTM performance is associated with activity in the posterior parietal cortex. Here we show that artificially elevating parietal activity via positively charged electric current through the skull can rapidly and effortlessly improve people's VSTM performance. This artificial improvement, however, comes with an interesting twist: it interacts with people's natural VSTM capability such that low performers who tend to remember less information benefitted from the stimulation, whereas high performers did not. This behavioral dichotomy is explained by event-related potentials around the parietal regions: low performers showed increased waveforms in N2pc and contralateral delay activity (CDA), which implies improvement in attention deployment and memory access in the current paradigm, respectively. Interestingly, these components are found during the presentation of the test array instead of the retention interval, from the parietal sites ipsilateral to the target location, thus suggesting that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was mainly improving one's ability to suppress no-change distractors located on the irrelevant side of the display during the comparison stage. The high performers, however, did not benefit from tDCS as they showed equally large waveforms in N2pc and CDA, or SPCN (sustained parietal contralateral negativity), before and after the stimulation such that electrical stimulation could not help any further, which also accurately accounts for our behavioral observations. Together, these results suggest that there is indeed a fixed upper limit in VSTM, but the low performers can benefit from neurostimulation to reach that maximum via enhanced comparison processes, and such behavioral improvement can be directly quantified and visualized by the magnitude of its associated electrophysiological waveforms.

Information processing can be biased toward behaviorally relevant and salient stimuli by top‐down (goal‐directed) and bottom‐up (stimulus‐driven) attentional control processes respectively. However, the neural basis underlying the integration of these processes is not well understood. We employed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and transcranial direct‐current stimulation (tDCS) in humans to examine the brain mechanisms underlying the interaction between these two processes. We manipulated the cognitive load involved in top‐down processing and stimulus surprise involved in bottom‐up processing in a factorial design by combining a majority function task and an oddball paradigm. We found that high cognitive load and high surprise level were associated with prolonged reaction time compared to low cognitive load and low surprise level, with a synergistic interaction effect, which was accompanied by a greater deactivation of bilateral temporoparietal junction (TPJ). In addition, the TPJ displayed negative functional connectivity with right middle occipital gyrus, which is involved in bottom‐up processing (modulated by the interaction effect), and the right frontal eye field (FEF), which is involved in top‐down control. The enhanced negative functional connectivity between the TPJ and right FEF was accompanied by a larger behavioral interaction effect across subjects. Application of cathodal tDCS over the right TPJ eliminated the interaction effect. These results suggest that the TPJ plays a critical role in processing bottom‐up information for top‐down control of attention. Hum Brain Mapp 36:4317–4333, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

How does the brain enable us to remember two or more object representations in visual working memory (VWM) without confusing them? This “gluing” process, or feature binding, refers to the ability to join certain features together while keeping them segregated from others. Recent neuroimaging research has reported higher BOLD response in the left temporal and parietal cortex during a binding-VWM task. However, less is known about how the two regions work in synchrony to support such process. In this study, we applied transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) over the left temporal and parietal cortex in gamma and theta frequency, with a phase difference of either 0° (in-phase) or 180° (anti-phase) to account for the different ways through which neural synchronization may occur. We found no facilitatory or inhibitory effect from sham, theta and in-phase gamma stimulation. Importantly, there was an enhancement effect from anti-phase gamma tACS that was binding-specific and such effect was only apparent in low-performing individuals who had room for improvement. Together, these results demonstrate that binding-VWM is supported by a temporally-precise oscillatory mechanism within the gamma frequency range and that the advantageous 180°-apart phase relationship also implies a possible temporal driver-to-receiver time-lag between the temporal and parietal cortex.