4.6 Article

Differential anterior prefrontal activation during the recognition stage of a spatial working memory task

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 1742-1749

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhi051

Keywords

delayed-response; encoding; fMRI; frontopolar; human; retrieval

Categories

Funding

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [EB00461, R01 EB000461] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH44866, MH38546, MH30929-22] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS33332] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neuroimaging studies commonly show widespread activations in the prefrontal cortex during various forms of working memory and long-term memory tasks. However, the anterior prefrontal cortex (aPFC, Brodmann area 10) has been mainly associated with retrieval in episodic memory, and its role in working memory is less clear. We conducted an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study to examine brain activations in relation to recognition in a spatial delayed-recognition task. Similar to the results from previous findings, several frontal areas were strongly activated during the recognition phase of the task, including the aPFC, the lateral PFC and the anterior cingulate cortex. Although the aPFC was more active during the recognition phase, it was also active during the delay phase of the spatial working memory task. In addition, the aPFC showed greater activity in response to negative probes (non-targets) than to positive probes (targets). While our analyses focused on examining signal changes in the aPFC, other prefrontal regions showed similar effects and none of the areas were more active in response to the positive probes than to the negative probes. Our findings support the conclusion that the aPFC is involved in working memory and particularly in processes that distinguish target and non-target stimuli during recognition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available