4.5 Article

Attention, intention, and strategy in preparatory control

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 47, 期 7, 页码 1670-1685

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.004

关键词

Preparation; Cognitive control; Action; Selective attention; fMRI; Task switching; Multi-tasking; Frontal cortex; Parietal cortex

资金

  1. RO1 GRANT [MH066078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neural mechanisms underlying different forms of preparatory control were examined using event-related fMRI. Preparatory brain activation was monitored in relation to different types of advance information: (1) random task cues indicating which of two possible tasks to perform upon subsequent target presentation; (2) task-ambiguous target stimuli; or(3) targets for which the correct response could be pre-determined. Three types of activation pattern were observed in different brain regions. First, more posterior regions of lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) and parietal cortex were activated by both advance task cues and advance targets, but with increased and more sustained activation for the latter. Second, more anterior regions of LPFC and parietal cortex were selectively activated by advance targets. Importantly, in these regions preparatory activation was not further modulated by the availability of advance response information. In contrast, preparatory activation in a third set of brain regions, including medial frontal cortex, reflected the utilization of advance response information, but by only a subset of participants. These results suggest three types of preparatory control: attentional (stimulus-oriented), intentional (action-oriented), and a possibly strategic component that might determine inter-individual differences in response readiness. Notably, the absence of regions selectively or even preferentially activated during cue-based preparation argues against certain conceptualizations of task-selective attention under cued task-switching conditions. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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