4.7 Article

Functional imaging of working memory after 24 hr of total sleep deprivation

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 24, 期 19, 页码 4560-4567

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0007-04.2004

关键词

working memory; prefrontal cortex; cortical deactivation; sleep deprivation; functional imaging; BOLD fMRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neurobehavioral effects of 24 hr of total sleep deprivation (SD) on working memory in young healthy adults was studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Two tasks, one testing maintenance and the other manipulation and maintenance, were used. After SD, response times for both tasks were significantly slower. Performance was better preserved in the more complex task. Both tasks activated a bilateral, left hemisphere-dominant frontal-parietal network of brain regions reflecting the engagement of verbal working memory. In both states, manipulation elicited more extensive and bilateral (L>R) frontal, parietal, and thalamic activation. After SD, there was reduced blood oxygenation level-dependent signal response in the medial parietal region with both tasks. Reduced deactivation of the anterior medial frontal and posterior cingulate regions was observed with both tasks. Finally, there was disproportionately greater activation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and bilateral thalamus when manipulation was required. This pattern of changes in activation and deactivation bears similarity to that observed when healthy elderly adults perform similar tasks. Our data suggest that reduced activation and reduced deactivation could underlie cognitive impairment after SD and that increased prefrontal and thalamic activation may represent compensatory adaptations. The additional left frontal activation elicited after SD is postulated to be task dependent and contingent on task complexity. Our findings provide neural correlates to explain why task performance in relatively more complex tasks is better preserved relative to simpler ones after SD.

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