4.7 Article

Impulsive personality predicts dopamine-dependent changes in frontostriatal activity during component processes of working memory

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 27, Issue 20, Pages 5506-5514

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0601-07.2007

Keywords

dopamine; working memory; prefrontal cortex; basal ganglia; fMRI; impulsivity

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0001354B, G0001354] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [G0001354] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [DA02060, R01 DA020600] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [MH63901, R01 MH063901] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NINDS NIH HHS [NS40813, P01 NS040813] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dopaminergic drugs affect a variety of cognitive processes, but the direction and extent of effects vary across individuals and tasks. Paradoxical effects are observed, by which the same drug causes cognitive enhancing as well as adverse effects. Here, we demonstrate that individual differences in impulsive personality account for the contrasting effects of dopaminergic drugs on working memory and associated frontostriatal activity. We observed that the dopamine D-2 receptor agonist bromocriptine improved the flexible updating ( switching) of relevant information in working memory in high-impulsive subjects, but not in low-impulsive subjects. These behavioral effects in high-impulsive subjects accompanied dissociable effects on frontostriatal activity. Bromocriptine modulated the striatum during switching but not during distraction from relevant information in working memory. Conversely, the lateral frontal cortex was modulated by bromocriptine during distraction but not during switching. The present results provide a key link between dopamine D2 receptor function, impulsivity, and frontostriatal activity during component processes of working memory.

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