4.6 Article

Frontal and parietal lobe activation during transitive inference in humans

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages 1312-1321

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/12.12.1312

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG10634] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS25074, NS35376] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cortical areas engaged in knowledge manipulation during reasoning were identified with functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) while participants performed transitive inference (TI) on an ordered list of 11 items (e.g. if A < B and B < C, then A < C). Initially, participants learned a list of arbitrarily ordered visual shapes. Learning occurred by exposure to pairs of list items that were adjacent in the sequence. Subsequently, functional MR images were acquired as participants performed TI on non-adjacent sequence items. Control tasks consisted of height comparisons (HT) and passive viewing (VIS). Comparison of the TI task with the HT task identified activation resulting from TI, termed 'reasoning', while controlling for rule application, decision processes, perception, and movement, collectively termed 'support processes'. The HT-VIS comparison revealed activation related to support processes. The TI reasoning network included bilateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA), premotor area (PMA), insula, precuneus, and lateral posterior parietal cortex. By contrast, cortical regions activated by support processes included the bilateral supplementary motor area (SMA), primary motor cortex (M1), somatic sensory cortices, and right PMA. These results emphasize the role of a prefrontal-parietal network in manipulating information to form new knowledge based on familiar facts. The findings also demonstrate PFC activation beyond short-term memory to include mental operations associated with reasoning.

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