4.5 Article

Distinct roles for lateral and medial rostral prefrontal cortex in source monitoring of perceived and imagined events

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 1442-1453

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.029

Keywords

functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); cognitive control; source memory; reality monitoring; self-referential processing; confabulation

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust [061171] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [PTA-037-27-0085] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. ESRC [PTA-037-27-0085] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rostral prefrontal cortex (PFC) is known to be involved in source memory, the ability to recollect contextual information about an event. However it is unclear whether subregions of rostral PFC may be differentially engaged during the recollection of different kinds of source detail. We used event related functional MRI to contrast two forms of source recollection: (1) recollection of whether stimuli had previously been perceived or imagined, and (2) recollection of which of two temporally distinct lists those stimuli had been presented in. Lateral regions of rostral PFC were activated in both tasks. However medial regions of rostral PFC were activated only when participants were required to recollect source information for self-generated, imagined stimuli, indicating a specific role in self-referential processing. In addition, reduced activity in a region of medial ventro-caudal PFC/basal forebrain was associated with making imagined-to-perceived confabulation errors. These results suggest that whilst the processing resources supported by some regions of lateral rostral PFC play a general role in source recollection, those supported by medial rostral PFC structures may be more specialised in their contributions. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available