4.7 Article

Contrasting Activity Profile of Two Distributed Cortical Networks as a Function of Attentional Demands

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 1191-1201

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4867-08.2009

关键词

attention; cortex; amygdala; prefrontal; EEG; electroencephalogram; cingulate

资金

  1. National Institutes Health [R01 MH-073610]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent human functional MRI (fMRI) studies have revealed that two widely distributed groups of cortical areas display inverse changes in activity when attentional demands increase, with one group showing higher (task-on) and the second lower (task-off) blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals. Moreover, task-on and task-off regions also exhibit slow (< 0.2 Hz) inversely correlated fluctuations in BOLD signal at rest. However, the neuronal correlates of these reciprocal BOLD signal fluctuations are unknown. Here, we addressed this question using simultaneous recordings of unit activity and local field potentials (LFPs) in the cat homologues of task-on and task-off regions. In all states of vigilance, LFP power was lower in task- off than task- on regions with no difference in firing rates. Both sets of regions displayed slow (0.5-0.15 Hz) cyclical modulations in LFP power in all frequency bands but with large and variable phase differences such that task- on and task- off regions were often anticorrelated. Inversely correlated LFP power fluctuations were state-dependent in that they were much more frequent in waking and paradoxical sleep than in slow-wave sleep. Moreover, consistent with fMRI findings, when attentional demands increased, LFP power in task- on and task-off regions changed in opposite directions, further augmenting and decreasing, respectively. At odds with previous fMRI studies, however, the decreased LFP power in task-off regions was associated with increased firing rates, suggesting that the engagement of task- off regions might not be reduced but in fact enhanced during attention.

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

4.7
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