4.7 Article

The neural basis of executive function in working memory: an fMRI study based on individual differences

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 623-631

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.069

关键词

neural basis of executive function; working memory; fMRI; individual differences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using fMRI, neural substrates of the executive system were investigated with respect to differences in working memory capacity. To explore the executive control processes, reading span test (RST) and read conditions were performed. Two subject groups were selected: those with large working memory capacities, labeled high-span subjects (HSS) according to the reading span test, and those with small working memory capacities, labeled low-span subjects (LSS). Significant activation was found mainly in three regions in comparison with the control: anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), left inferior frontal gyros (IFG), visual association cortex (VAC) and superior parietal lobule (SPL). For both groups, the fMRI signal intensity increased in ACC and IFG during the RST condition compared to that under the read condition. A group difference was also found in the ACC and IFG region, specifically a significant increase in signal intensity was observed only for the HSS group but not for the LSS group. Behavioral data also showed that the performance was better in HSS than in LSS. Moreover, the cross correlation of signal change between ACC and IFG was higher in HSS than in LSS, indicating that the network system between ACC and IFG was more activated in HSS compared to that of LSS. These results suggest that executive function, that is, working attention controlling system is more active in HSS than in LSS. Moreover, the results confirmed our hypothesis that there is a general neural basis for the central executive function in both RST and previous LST (listening span test) tasks despite differences in modality-specific buffers. (C) 2003 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