4.4 Article

A coordinate-based meta-analysis of the n-back working memory paradigm using activation likelihood estimation

Journal

BRAIN AND COGNITION
Volume 132, Issue -, Pages 1-12

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2019.01.002

Keywords

N-back task; Quantitative meta-analysis; Working memory; Frontal cortex; Parietal cortex; Anterior insula (aI)

Funding

  1. NSFC [61773096, 61473062, 61773092, 61673087]
  2. 111 project [B12027]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The n-back task is a classical paradigm for functional neuroimaging studies of working memory (WM). The frontal and parietal cortical regions are known to be activated during the task. We used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of 96 primary studies of n-back task variants based on four conditions: memory loads (1-back, 2-back), object (identity, location), age (younger, older) and gender (male, female). Six cortical regions were consistently activated across all the studies: bilateral middle frontal gyrus (BA 10); bilateral inferior parietal lobule (BA 40); bilateral precuneus (BA 7); left superior frontal gyrus (BA 6); left anterior insula (aI) (BA 13); bilateral thalamus. Further meta-analyses revealed that different regions were sensitive to different conditions: compared with 1-back, 2-back increased activation in left middle frontal gyrus, left inferior frontal gyrus and left aI; compared with object location, object identity increased activation in right aI; young, compared with older subjects showed increased activation in frontal, parietal lobule, and right aI; the comparison between male and female showed no differences. Thus, our findings, showed consistent activation of frontal and parietal cortical regions, while other regions such as the aI, showed different activation patterns depending on varying experimental classification conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available