4.7 Review

Functional neuroanatomy of auditory working memory in schizophrenia: Relation to positive and negative symptoms

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 433-446

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0699

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Functional brain imaging studies of working memory (WM) in schizophrenia have yielded inconsistent results regarding deficits in the dorsolateral prefrontal (DLPFC) and parietal cortices. In spite of its potential importance in schizophrenia, there have been few investigations of WM deficits using auditory stimuli and no functional imaging studies have attempted to relate brain activation during auditory WM to positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. We used a two-back auditory WM paradigm in a functional MRI study of men with schizophrenia (N = 11) and controls (N = 13). Region of interest analysis was used to investigate group differences in activation as well as correlations with symptom scores from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Patients with schizophrenia performed significantly worse and were slower than control subjects in the WM task. Patients also showed decreased lateralization of activation and significant WM related activation deficits in the left and right DLPFC, frontal operculum, inferior parietal, and superior parietal cortex but not in the anterior cingulate or superior temporal gyrus. These results indicate that in addition to the prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex function is also disrupted during WM in schizophrenia. Withdrawal-retardation symptom scores were inversely correlated with frontal operculum activation. Thinking disturbance symptom scores were inversely correlated with right DLPFC activation. Our findings suggest an association between thinking disturbance symptoms, particularly unusual thought content, and disrupted WM processing in schizophrenia. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

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