Cognitive control networks in human and macaque
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This study presents a valuable contribution to comparative cognitive neuroscience by directly mapping functional homologues of the human multiple-demand network in macaques using a matched spatial maze task. However, the evidence is incomplete due to methodological asymmetries in task design and preprocessing parameters that warrant careful consideration. The work will be of interest to researchers studying the evolution of cognitive control and cross-species neuroimaging.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
A much-replicated finding in human brain imaging is a distributed “multiple-demand” or MD system, increasing in activity for many kinds of cognitive demand, and centrally involved in cognitive control. MD regions are proposed to encode a distributed mental model of critical task events, bound together in the roles and relationships needed to direct action selection. Though previous data hint at a corresponding network in the macaque, there has been no direct comparison to human data. Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure whole brain activation in a multi-step saccadic maze task, compared to a control requiring similar moves but without goal-based decisions. Human data were a close match to the canonical MD network, extended to include adjacent regions and in particular much of the canonical dorsal attention network. Monkey data suggested correspondences in dorsomedial frontal, lateral and medial parietal, insula/orbitofrontal and posterior temporal cortex. In lateral frontal cortex there was just a single, largely dorsal activation patch, in contrast to multiple distinct human patches. In macaque as in human, together with previous data, our findings suggest an extended and strongly interconnected brain network recruited by increased cognitive challenge.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This study presents a valuable contribution to comparative cognitive neuroscience by directly mapping functional homologues of the human multiple-demand network in macaques using a matched spatial maze task. However, the evidence is incomplete due to methodological asymmetries in task design and preprocessing parameters that warrant careful consideration. The work will be of interest to researchers studying the evolution of cognitive control and cross-species neuroimaging.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The "multiple-demand" (MD) system is a well-known finding of human brain imaging and is thought to play a central role in cognitive control. To directly compare the MD system in humans and monkeys, Mione et al. used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure whole-brain activation in a multi-step saccadic maze task. In humans, the authors found a distributed pattern of brain activity close match to the canonical MD network and extends to adjacent regions of dorsal attention and other networks. While there was good correspondence between monkey and human data, differences were also notable in the lateral frontal cortex, the dorsal parietal cortex, and the sensorimotor cortex.
Strengths:
Though previous data hint at a corresponding network in the macaque, there has been no direct comparison to …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
The "multiple-demand" (MD) system is a well-known finding of human brain imaging and is thought to play a central role in cognitive control. To directly compare the MD system in humans and monkeys, Mione et al. used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure whole-brain activation in a multi-step saccadic maze task. In humans, the authors found a distributed pattern of brain activity close match to the canonical MD network and extends to adjacent regions of dorsal attention and other networks. While there was good correspondence between monkey and human data, differences were also notable in the lateral frontal cortex, the dorsal parietal cortex, and the sensorimotor cortex.
Strengths:
Though previous data hint at a corresponding network in the macaque, there has been no direct comparison to human data. This study provides a direct cross-species comparison with whole-brain data from fMRI, and the findings suggest an extended and strongly interconnected brain network recruited by increased cognitive challenge.
Weaknesses:
In previous human imaging, the MD system is defined by overlapping activation for many kinds of cognitive demands. In the present work, however, the authors used just a single task. Although there is some overlap between the putative monkey MD network and the canonical MD network identified in human imaging, there should be caution in linking current findings to the MD system based on limited task events.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Mione et al. aim to resolve a long-standing question in comparative neuroscience: whether the macaque brain contains a functional analogue to the distributed human multiple-demand (MD) network. To address this, the authors employ a direct cross-species fMRI comparison using a multi-step saccadic maze task in humans and a simplified two-step version in macaques. By contrasting goal-directed navigation against a control condition that requires similar motor responses but no strategic planning, the study isolates the neural signatures of cognitive control across species.
Strengths:
The most compelling aspect of this work is its methodological alignment. Previous attempts to compare these systems often relied on comparisons of human BOLD signals and macaque single-unit recordings. By running parallel …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
Mione et al. aim to resolve a long-standing question in comparative neuroscience: whether the macaque brain contains a functional analogue to the distributed human multiple-demand (MD) network. To address this, the authors employ a direct cross-species fMRI comparison using a multi-step saccadic maze task in humans and a simplified two-step version in macaques. By contrasting goal-directed navigation against a control condition that requires similar motor responses but no strategic planning, the study isolates the neural signatures of cognitive control across species.
Strengths:
The most compelling aspect of this work is its methodological alignment. Previous attempts to compare these systems often relied on comparisons of human BOLD signals and macaque single-unit recordings. By running parallel fMRI protocols, the authors establish a shared measurement basis that allows for a more direct comparison. The resulting activation maps clearly demonstrate conserved network topology across dorsomedial frontal, lateral, and medial parietal, and insula cortices. Combining these results with recent research on functional and structural connectivity further supports the idea that these networks evolved across species and provides a helpful starting point for future comparative studies. The findings will be highly useful for researchers investigating the evolutionary origins of domain-general cognitive control, as well as for neuroimaging methodologists developing cross-species alignment pipelines.
Weaknesses:
However, there are several differences in how the two groups were studied that make it harder to compare the results precisely. The human task mixed 2-, 4-, and 6-step trials within the same experimental blocks, whereas macaques performed only 2-step trials. This design difference likely places human participants in a state of sustained proactive cognitive control (Braver, 2012), as they must remain prepared for highly demanding trials at any moment. This elevated baseline arousal may artificially inflate MD network activation during the simpler 2-step trials in humans, making direct magnitude comparisons with the macaque data difficult. Additionally, the general linear model combined correct and error trials into a single regressor. Given that macaques exhibited substantially higher error rates, this approach risks diluting task-specific planning signals with activity related to error monitoring and reward prediction errors. The preprocessing pipeline also applied a 4 mm full-width half-maximum smoothing kernel to macaque data acquired at 1.5 mm resolution. Relative to the smaller size of the macaque brain, this kernel is quite large and likely blurs fine-grained topographical distinctions. This may partly explain why the macaque lateral frontal cortex shows a single dorsal activation patch rather than multiple discrete patches seen in humans. Furthermore, there is concerning inter-individual variability in the macaque data. Normally, a functional network like the MD system is identified by consistent activation across all individuals. In this study, however, the two monkeys show substantially different activation maps and behavioral patterns. This lack of consistency renders the group-level results questionable, as it is unclear whether the group-level map represents a unified biological system or merely an average of disparate individual maps. Finally, the subcortical activations shown in Figure 7 require more precise anatomical localization to confidently distinguish cerebellar nodes from adjacent brainstem structures.
The authors demonstrate a broad functional correspondence between human and macaque cognitive control networks, moving the field beyond speculative homology. The data suggest that an extended, interconnected network is recruited by cognitive challenge in both species; however, the strength of this claim is limited by the inter-individual variability and methodological constraints noted above. Assertions of precise topological equivalence should therefore be tempered. The absence of ventrolateral prefrontal and strong dorsal parietal activations in the macaque group analysis may reflect genuine biological differences, but could also stem from limited statistical power, excessive smoothing, or task-design asymmetries. While the overall conclusions are plausible, they would be significantly strengthened by a more explicit discussion of these limitations and additional analytical clarifications regarding individual-level consistency.
-
