4.5 Article

Prefrontal and parietal cortex in human episodic memory: an interference study by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 793-800

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04600.x

关键词

long-term memory; neuroimaging; parietal cortex; prefrontal cortex; rTMS; transcranial magnetic stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuroimaging findings, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) interference, point to an engagement of prefrontal cortex (PFC) in learning and memory. Whether parietal cortex (PC) activity is causally linked to successful episodic encoding and retrieval is still uncertain. We compared the effects of event-related active or sham rTMS (a rapid-rate train coincident to the very first phases of memoranda presentation) to the left or right intraparietal sulcus, during a standardized episodic memory task of visual scenes, with those obtained in a fully matched sample of subjects who received rTMS on left or right dorsolateral PFC during the same task. In these subjects, specific hemispheric effects of rTMS included interference with encoding after left stimulation and disruption of retrieval after right stimulation. The interference of PC-rTMS on encoding/retrieval performance was negligible, lacking specificity even when higher intensities of stimulation were applied. However, right PC-rTMS of the same intensity lengthened reaction times in the context of a purely attentive visuospatial task. These results suggest that the activity of intraparietal sulci shown in several funtional magnetic resonance studies on memory, unlike that of the dorsolateral PFC, is not causally engaged to a useful degree in memory encoding and retrieval of visual scenes. The parietal activations accompanying the memorization processes could reflect the engagement of a widespread brain attentional network, in which interference on a single 'node' is insufficient for an overt disruption of memory performance.

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