4.7 Article

Segregation of cognitive and emotional function in the prefrontal cortex: a stereotactic meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 868-875

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.066

关键词

imaging studies; schizophrenia; major depressive disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Imaging studies of major depressive disorder and schizophrenia strongly implicate the prefrontal cortex. Interpretation of such studies is hindered by the limited knowledge of normal functional segregation. Different anatomical regions may be functionally specialised. Elucidating such specialisation may assist design and interpretation of patient studies. In this meta-analysis, 330 emotion induction and cognitive task studies of normal subjects published over the past decade reporting prefrontal activation have been examined. It was hypothesised that emotion induction would result in inferior medial activation and cognitive tasks dorsolateral activation. A significant difference in the pattern of reported activations was found in keeping with this hypothesis. Estimates of most likely reported activation loci for emotion induction and cognitive task studies have been made. In Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) stereotactic space, these comprise of +/-5, 46, 18 and +/-5, 28, 31 for the medial prefrontal cortex, and +/-42, 28, -16 and +/-54, 28, 18 for the lateral prefrontal cortex, respectively. Additionally, estimates of the boundaries between emotional and cognitive-processing regions have been made. We restricted the effects of various potential sources of bias on the above estimates by attempting to include all relevant studies and independent selection by both authors of at most two activation loci from each study according to prespecified criteria. Such estimates of most likely reported activation loci may allow improved planning, analysis, and interpretation of imaging studies of psychiatric disorder and of normal function. (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