4.5 Article

THE ROLE OF THE DORSOLATERAL PREFRONTAL CORTEX IN RETRIEVAL FROM LONG-TERM MEMORY DEPENDS ON STRATEGIES: A REPETITIVE TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION STUDY

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 166, 期 2, 页码 501-507

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.12.037

关键词

cognition; retrieval; face-name pairs; memory strategies; DLPFC; TMS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to associate a name to a face is a crucially relevant task in daily life. In this study, we investigated the neuronal basis of face-name retrieval in young subjects using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left or right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The experimental task was composed of two study phases: an encoding phase and a retrieval phase. During the encoding phase, subjects saw a face (familiar or unfamiliar) followed by a name. During the retrieval phase, they saw the face together with two names and had to choose the name that was correctly associated with the face. rTMS was delivered only during retrieval. In addition, we evaluated the use of memory strategies during the task. Accordingly, subjects were subdivided into two groups: strategy users (SU) and no-strategy users (NSU). No rTMS effects were present for familiar face-name pairs, probably due to a ceiling effect. However, for unfamiliar face-name pairs, the different use of memory strategies resulted in different rTMS effects. The SU group showed a selective interference effect after right DLPFC stimulation, whereas the NSU group showed an effect after left DLPFC stimulation. Importantly, the overall performance of the two groups was comparable. We suggest that during memory retrieval the left DLPFC might be recruited when the subject does not apply deliberately a retrieval strategy whereas there is a shift to the right DLPFC if cognitive control processes that are engaged by strategies are needed to guide episodic retrieval. (C) 2010 IBRO. Published by 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