4.7 Article

Differences between target and non-target probe processing - Combined evidence from fMRI, EEG and fMRI-constrained source analysis

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages 289-299

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.044

Keywords

Working memory; ERP; P300; RT; Match; DMTS task

Funding

  1. BMBF Neuroimaging program from the Center for Advanced Imaging (CAI) - Magdeburg/Bremen [01GO0202]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies reported heterogeneous findings in working memory tasks when examining differences between correct recognition (targets) and correct rejection (non-targets). In the present study, twenty human participants completed a delayed match-to-sample task in two separate functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) sessions. Targets and non-target items were presented at different within-trial positions. We used fMRI-constrained source analysis to investigate the spatio-temporal neuronal dynamics of probe processing. Probe type-related differences were modulated by position in the trial or by the ratio of target stimuli to nontarget stimuli at different trial positions. fMRI-constrained source analysis revealed a temporal pattern of source activities starting in occipital and temporal brain regions, followed by a simultaneous engagement of parietal and frontal brain regions and a later activity of a source in pre-SMA (supplementary motor area). Source activities demonstrated a specific involvement of left fusiform gyrus in the non-target condition compared to the target condition that might be associated with mental imagination of the target stimulus during non-target probe processing. Source activities, furthermore, showed the anterior cingulate to be particularly involved in target processing compared to non-target processing before response execution and the pre-SMA before and during response execution. These brain areas appear to be activated in different stages of conflict managing operations due to a lower stimulus frequency of target trials compared to non-target trials at different target positions in the present design. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available