4.7 Article

Specific versus nonspecific brain activity in a parametric n-back task

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 688-697

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0645

关键词

MRI; working memory; parametric design; n-back task; prefrontal cortex; parietal cortex; anterior cingulate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to examine cerebral activity patterns in relation to increasing mental load of a working memory task. Aim of the experiment was to distinguish nonspecific task-related processes from specific workload processes analytically. Twelve healthy volunteers engaged in a spatial n-back task with four levels. FMRI data were acquired with the SD-PRESTO pulse sequence. Analysis entailed a two-step multiple regression algorithm, which was specifically designed to measure and separate load-sensitive and load-insensitive activity simultaneously, while preserving the original high spatial resolution of the fMRI signal. Load-sensitive and load-insensitive activity was found in both dorsolateral-prefrontal and parietal cortex, predominantly bilaterally, and in the anterior cingulate. As expected, the left primary sensorimotor cortex showed predominantly load-insensitive activity. Load-sensitive activity reflects specific working memory functions, such as temporary retention and manipulation of information, while load-insensitive activity reflects supportive functions, such as visual orientation, perception, encoding, and response selection and execution. Good performance was correlated with a large area of load-sensitive activity in anterior cingulate, and with a small area of load-insensitive activity in the right parietal cortex. The findings indicate that nonspecific and specific working memory processes colocalize and are represented in multiple frontal and parietal regions. Implication of this analytical strategy for application in research on psychiatric disorders is discussed. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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