4.4 Article

Neural correlates of verbal and nonverbal working memory deficits in individuals with schizophrenia and their high-risk siblings

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 87, 期 1-3, 页码 191-204

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2006.05.019

关键词

schizophrenia; working memory; fMRI; high-fisk; nback; prefrontal cortex

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH60887, MH066031, MH071616, MH56584] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impaired working memory and functional brain activation deficits within prefrontal cortex (PFC) may be associated with vulnerability to schizophrenia. This study compared working memory and PFC activation in individuals with schizophrenia, their unaffected siblings and healthy comparison participants. We administered a 2back version of the nback task. Functional MRI (MRI) was used to measure brain activity. Nineteen individuals with DSM-IV schizophrenia, 18 of their siblings, and 72 healthy comparison participants underwent fMRI scans while performing word and face nback working memory tasks. Repeated trials (items whose prior presentation was not in the correct nback position) allowed us to assess group differences in the ability to code the temporal order of items. Individuals with schizophrenia and their siblings performed worse than controls on repeated lure trials, suggesting an association between schizophrenia and impairments in the coding of temporal order within working memory. Both individuals with schizophrenia and their siblings also demonstrated abnormal brain activation in PFC, such that both groups had hyperactivation in response to word stimuli and hypoactivation in response to face stimuli. These results provide further evidence that individuals with schizophrenia and their siblings are impaired in their ability to encode the temporal order of items within working memory and that disturbances in working memory and PFC activation may be genetic markers of the vulnerability to schizophrenia. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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