4.7 Article

Task demands modulate sustained and transient neural activity during visual-matching tasks

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 511-519

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.039

关键词

task demands; visual-matching tasks; neural activity

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD01487] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS51733, NS32979, NS55582] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NLM NIH HHS [LM06858] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The extent to which a task demands verbal or non-verbal processing may influence which neural regions underlie performance. In the present study, sustained and transient responses were examined using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in conjunction with a mixed blocked/event-related design during three visual-matching tasks that varied in the extent to which they relied on verbal processing. In a name-matching task, subjects decided whether two letters had the same or a different name (e.g., A a); in a physical-matching task, subjects decided whether two letters were exactly the same or different (e.g., A A); in a non-letter-matching task, subjects decided whether two non-letters were exactly the same or different. Results revealed several regions in which sustained activity differed across the three tasks as well as several regions in which sustained activity did not differ. Most notably, regions in the right inferior frontal gyros exhibited greater sustained activity during the name-matching task than during the physical or non-letter-matching tasks, indicating that sustained activity in this region is sensitive to the amount of verbal processing required by a particular task. Moreover, transient activity in the right inferior frontal regions, as well as others, exhibited the opposite pattern of results. In combination, results suggest that sustained and transient activities interact to produce the context-appropriate response during visual-matching tasks. (c) 2004 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