3.8 Article

Activity in fusiform face area modulated as a function of working memory load

Journal

COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 355-364

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00056-2

Keywords

working memory; fMRI; fusiform gyrus; prefrontal cortex; face; neuroimaging

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG13483, AG15793] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32-GM07517] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS01762] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM007517] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [K08NS001762] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG015793, R01AG013483] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous fMRI results suggest that extrastriate visual areas have a predominant role in perceptual processing while the prefrontal cortex (PFC) has a predominant role in working memory. In contrast, single-unit recording studies in monkeys have demonstrated a relationship between extrastriate visual areas and visual working memory tasks. In this study we tested whether activity in both the PFC and fusiform Face area (FFA) changed with increasing demands of an n-back task for gray-scale faces, Since stimulus presentation was identical across conditions, the n-back task allowed us to parametrically vary working memory demands across conditions while holding perceptual and motor demands constant. This study replicated the result of PFC areas of activation that increased directly with load n of the task. The novel finding in all subjects was FFA activation that also increased directly with load n of the task. Since perceptual demands were equivalent across the three task conditions, these findings suggest that activity in both the PFC and the FFA vary with face working memory demands. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available