4.4 Article

Two Distinct Neuronal Networks Mediate the Awareness of Environment and of Self

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 570-578

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21488

关键词

-

资金

  1. Belgian National Funds for Scientific Research (FNRS)
  2. European Commission
  3. James McDonnell Foundation
  4. Mind Science Foundation
  5. French Speaking Community Concerted Research Action [ARC-06/11340]
  6. Fondation Medicale Reine Elisabeth
  7. University of Liege
  8. ARC [06/11-340]
  9. DISCOS Marie-Curie Research Training Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence from functional neuroimaging studies on resting state suggests that there are two distinct anticorrelated cortical systems that mediate conscious awareness: an extrinsic system that encompasses lateral fronto-parietal areas and has been linked with processes of external input (external awareness), and an intrinsic system which encompasses mainly medial brain areas and has been associated with internal processes (internal awareness). The aim of our study was to explore the neural correlates of resting state by providing behavioral and neuroimaging data from healthy volunteers. With no a priori assumptions, we first determined behaviorally the relationship between external and internal awareness in 31 subjects. We found a significant anticorrelation between external and internal awareness with a mean switching frequency of 0.05 Hz (range: 0.01-0.1 Hz). Interestingly, this frequency is similar to BOLD fMRI slow oscillations. We then evaluated 22 healthy volunteers in an fMRI paradigm looking for brain areas where BOLD activity correlated with internal and external scores. Activation of precuneus/posterior cingulate, anterior cingulate/mesiofrontal cortices, and parahippocampal areas (intrinsic system) was linearly linked to intensity of internal awareness, whereas activation of lateral fronto-parietal cortices (extrinsic system) was linearly associated with intensity of external awareness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据