4.7 Review

Evidence of a modality-dependent role of the cerebellum in working memory? An fMRl study comparing verbal and abstract n-back tasks

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 2073-2082

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.005

关键词

Central executive; Verbal working memory; Abstract working memory; Cerebellum; fMRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In working memory (VM), functional imaging studies demonstrate cerebellar involvement indicating a cognitive role of the cerebellum. These cognitive contributions were predominantly interpreted as part of the phonological loop within the Baddeley model of WM However, those underlying investigations were performed in the context of visual verbal VM which could pose a bias when interpreting the results. The aim of this fMRI study was to address the question of whether the cerebellum supports additional aspects of WM in the context of higher cognitive functions. Furthermore, laterality effects were investigated to further disentangle the cerebellar role in the context of the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad. A direct comparison of verbal and abstract visual WM was performed in 17 young volunteers by applying a 2-back paradigm and extracting the % change in BOLD signal from the fMRI data. To minimize potential verbal strategies, Attneave and Arnoult shapes of non-nameable objects were chosen for the abstract condition. The analyses revealed no significant differences in verbal vs. abstract WM. Moreover, no laterality effects were demonstrated in both verbal and abstract WM. These results provide further evidence of a broader cognitive involvement of the cerebellum in WM that is not only confined to the phonological loop but also supports central executive subfunctions. The fact that no lateralization effects are found might be attributed to the characteristics of the n-back paradigm which emphasizes central executive subfunctions over the subsidiary slave systems. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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