4.6 Article

Lateral Prefrontal Cortex Subregions Make Dissociable Contributions during Fluid Reasoning

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 1-10

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhq085

Keywords

analogical reasoning; fMRI; frontal lobe; rostrolateral prefrontal cortex; rule integration

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [U1055.01.002.00001.01]
  2. MRC [MC_U105559847, MC_U105580448] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105580448, MC_U105559847] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reasoning is a key component of adaptable executive behavior and is known to depend on a network of frontal and parietal brain regions. However, the mechanisms by which this network supports reasoning and adaptable behavior remain poorly defined. Here, we examine the relationship between reasoning, executive control, and frontoparietal function in a series of nonverbal reasoning experiments. Our results demonstrate that, in accordance with previous studies, a network of frontal and parietal brain regions is recruited during reasoning. Our results also reveal that this network can be fractionated according to how different subregions respond when distinct reasoning demands are manipulated. While increased rule complexity modulates activity within a right lateralized network including the middle frontal gyrus and the superior parietal cortex, analogical reasoning demand-or the requirement to remap rules on to novel features-recruits the left inferior rostrolateral prefrontal cortex and the lateral occipital complex. In contrast, the posterior extent of the inferior frontal gyrus, associated with simpler executive demands, is not differentially sensitive to rule complexity or analogical demand. These findings accord well with the hypothesis that different reasoning demands are supported by different frontal and parietal subregions.

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