4.6 Article

Contribution of frontal cortex to the spatial representation of number

Journal

CORTEX
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 2-13

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.005

Keywords

Space; Number; SNARC; Frontal cortex; TMS

Funding

  1. European Commission [RTN-NUMBRA, MERG-CT-2007-046511]
  2. Leverhulme Trust
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. Royal Society
  5. MRC [G0700929] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0700929] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neuropsychological and neurophysiological studies have suggested that prefrontal cortex may be involved in non-verbal number processing, when relevant for current behavioural goals. More precisely, it has been suggested that an intact right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) in humans may be necessary to the use of a spatial representation of numbers, also known as mental number line. In a popular model of spatial functions (e.g., Corbetta et al., 2008), rIFG is part of a right-lateralised ventral fronto-parietal network that conveys signals to a dorsal network supporting attentional orienting in contralateral space. Within the dorsal network, the frontal eye fields (FEF) are known to contribute to visual scene analysis and visual conjunction search tasks when eye movement commands are not required. In the present study, we hypothesised they might also be involved in exploring a conceptual space, such as the mental number line. We examined the proposed functions of the human rIFG and right Frontal Eye Field (rFEF) by interfering with their normal functioning with repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) while participants performed numerical tasks. The results suggest that, when number magnitude is relevant to the task, rIFG supports orienting to the entire mental number line while rFEF are crucial for contralateral orienting (that is towards small numbers). (C) 2009 Elsevier Srl. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available