Cerebral Cortex Advance Access originally published online on May 12, 2006
Cerebral Cortex 2007 17(4):826-838; doi:10.1093/cercor/bhk031
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effects of Focal Frontal Lesions on Response Inhibition
1 Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest, Toronto, Ontario M6A 2E1, Canada, 2 Departments of Medicine and Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 3 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, 4 Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, 5 Cognitive Neuropsychology and Neuroimaging Laboratory, Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Trieste, Italy, 6 Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK
Address correspondence to Terence W. Picton, Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest, 3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto M6A 2E1, Canada. Email: tpicton{at}rotman-baycrest.on.ca.
This study examined the performance of 38 normal subjects and 43 patients with focal lesions of the frontal lobes on a simple go–nogo task where the probability of the nogo stimulus was either 75% or 25%. Patients with lesions to the superior medial parts of the frontal lobes, in particular to the left superior portion of Brodmann area 6 (which includes the supplementary motor areas and the premotor areas for the right hand) had an increased number of false alarms (incorrect responses to the nogo stimulus). These results indicate that area 6 is specifically involved in the inhibition of response. Patients with lesions to the right anterior cingulate (areas 24 and 32) were slower and more variable in their reaction time. These findings could be explained by an inability to sustain stimulus-response contingencies. Lesions to the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (Brodmann areas 44, 45, 47) also increased the variability of response, perhaps by disrupting monitoring performance.
Key Words: anterior cingulate • lesion localization • nogo paradigm • premotor cortex • supplementary motor areas
Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by grant funds from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. van Gaal, K. R. Ridderinkhof, J. J. Fahrenfort, H. S. Scholte, and V. A. F. Lamme Frontal Cortex Mediates Unconsciously Triggered Inhibitory Control J. Neurosci., August 6, 2008; 28(32): 8053 - 8062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Mostofsky and D. J. Simmonds Response inhibition and response selection: two sides of the same coin. J. Cogn. Neurosci., May 1, 2008; 20(5): 751 - 761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C.N. Boehler, T.F. Munte, R.M. Krebs, H.-J. Heinze, M.A. Schoenfeld, and J.-M. Hopf Sensory MEG Responses Predict Successful and Failed Inhibition in a Stop-Signal Task Cereb Cortex, April 24, 2008; (2008) bhn063v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Boulinguez, M. Jaffard, L. Granjon, and A. Benraiss Warning Signals Induce Automatic EMG Activations and Proactive Volitional Inhibition: Evidence From Analysis of Error Distribution in Simple RT J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2008; 99(3): 1572 - 1578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Chambers, M. A. Bellgrove, I. C. Gould, T. English, H. Garavan, E. McNaught, M. Kamke, and J. B. Mattingley Dissociable Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Prefrontal and Premotor Cortex J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2007; 98(6): 3638 - 3647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|