Literature DB >> 15849894

The role of prefrontal cortex in resolving distractor interference.

Amishi P Jha1, Sara A Fabian, Geoffrey K Aguirre.   

Abstract

We investigate the hypothesis that those subregions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) found to support proactive interference resolution may also support delay-spanning distractor interference resolution. Ten subjects performed delayed-recognition tasks requiring working memory for faces or shoes during functional MRI scanning. During the 15-sec delay interval, task-irrelevant distractors were presented. These distractors were either all faces or all shoes and were thus either congruent or incongruent with the domain of items in the working memory task. Delayed-recognition performance was slower and less accurate during congruent than during incongruent trials. Our fMRI analyses revealed significant delay interval activity for face and shoe working memory tasks within both dorsal and ventral PFC. However, only ventral PFC activity was modulated by distractor category, with greater activity for congruent than for incongruent trials. Importantly, this congruency effect was only present for correct trials. In addition to PFC, activity within the fusiform face area was investigated. During face distraction, activity was greater for face relative to shoe working memory. As in ventrolateral PFC, this congruency effect was only present for correct trials. These results suggest that the ventrolateral PFC and fusiform face area may work together to support delay-spanning interference resolution.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15849894     DOI: 10.3758/cabn.4.4.517

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci        ISSN: 1530-7026            Impact factor:   3.282


  54 in total

1.  The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control.

Authors:  J B Hopfinger; M H Buonocore; G R Mangun
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict.

Authors:  M P Milham; M T Banich; A Webb; V Barad; N J Cohen; T Wszalek; A F Kramer
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2001-12

3.  Dissociable neural mechanisms underlying response-based and familiarity-based conflict in working memory.

Authors:  James K Nelson; Patricia A Reuter-Lorenz; Ching-Yune C Sylvester; John Jonides; Edward E Smith
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-09-04       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Face-specific processing in the human fusiform gyrus.

Authors:  G McCarthy; A Puce; J C Gore; T Allison
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  ERP and fMRI measures of visual spatial selective attention.

Authors:  G R Mangun; M H Buonocore; M Girelli; A P Jha
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Empirical analyses of BOLD fMRI statistics. I. Spatially unsmoothed data collected under null-hypothesis conditions.

Authors:  E Zarahn; G K Aguirre; M D'Esposito
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal correlates of transient memory.

Authors:  J M Fuster
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1973-01       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Activity of neurons in anterior inferior temporal cortex during a short-term memory task.

Authors:  E K Miller; L Li; R Desimone
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  The influence of memory load upon delay-interval activity in a working-memory task: an event-related functional MRI study.

Authors:  A P Jha; G McCarthy
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Effects of frontal lobe damage on interference effects in working memory.

Authors:  Sharon L Thompson-Schill; John Jonides; Christy Marshuetz; Edward E Smith; Mark D'Esposito; Irene P Kan; Robert T Knight; Diane Swick
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.282

View more
  31 in total

1.  Neural Representation of Working Memory Content Is Modulated by Visual Attentional Demand.

Authors:  Anastasia Kiyonaga; Emma Wu Dowd; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Goal-directed behavior under emotional distraction is preserved by enhanced task-specific activation.

Authors:  Michèle Wessa; Janine Heissler; Sandra Schönfelder; Philipp Kanske
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain.

Authors:  B R Postle
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.590

4.  Regional brain differences in the effect of distraction during the delay interval of a working memory task.

Authors:  Florin Dolcos; Brian Miller; Philip Kragel; Amishi Jha; Gregory McCarthy
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 3.252

5.  Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional distraction.

Authors:  Florin Dolcos; Gregory McCarthy
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Mechanisms of working memory disruption by external interference.

Authors:  Wesley C Clapp; Michael T Rubens; Adam Gazzaley
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 5.357

7.  Practice-related improvement in working memory is modulated by changes in processing external interference.

Authors:  Anne S Berry; Theodore P Zanto; Aaron M Rutman; Wesley C Clapp; Adam Gazzaley
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Evidence for working memory storage operations in perceptual cortex.

Authors:  Kartik K Sreenivasan; Caterina Gratton; Jason Vytlacil; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Emotional priming effects during Stroop task performance.

Authors:  Sarah J Hart; Steven R Green; Michael Casp; Aysenil Belger
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Made you look! Consciously perceived, irrelevant instructional cues can hijack the attentional network.

Authors:  Katherine Sledge Moore; Clare B Porter; Daniel H Weissman
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-02-05       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.