Skip Navigation



Cerebral Cortex Advance Access published online on December 28, 2005
Cerebral Cortex, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj098
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/11/1614    most recent
bhj098v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dobbins, I. G.
Right arrow Articles by Han, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dobbins, I. G.
Right arrow Articles by Han, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Article

Isolating Rule- versus Evidence-Based Prefrontal Activity during Episodic and Lexical Discrimination: a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of Detection Theory Distinctions

Ian G. Dobbins 1 * and Sanghoon Han 1

1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ian G. Dobbins, E-mail: ian.dobbins{at}duke.edu


  Abstract

Dorsolateral and frontopolar prefrontal cortices (PFCs) are often implicated in neuroimaging studies of memory retrieval, with this activity ascribed to controlled monitoring processes indicative of difficult or demanding retrieval. Difficulty, however, is multiply determined, with success rates governed both by the available evidence and by the nature of decision rules applied to that evidence. Using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging, we isolated these factors by 1) contrasting different decision rules across matched evidence and 2) manipulating the level of evidence within a fixed decision rule. For identically constructed retrieval probes (1 old and 1 new item), same-different (are these different?) compared with forced-choice (which one is old?) decision rules yielded bilateral dorsolateral and right frontopolar PFC increases. However, these regions were unaffected when the available evidence was greatly lowered within forced-choice decisions. Thus, the regions were simultaneously sensitive to the type of decision rule and yet insensitive to the level of evidence supporting those decisions. Analogous lexical tasks yielded similar patterns, demonstrating that the PFC responses were not episodic memory specific. We discuss the mechanistic differences between same-different versus forced-choice decisions and the implications of these data for current theories of PFC activity during episodic remembering and executive control.

Keywords: executive control; fMRI; memory; prefrontal cortex; signal detection theory.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
A. P. Weiss, C. B. Ellis, J. L. Roffman, S. Stufflebeam, M. S. Hamalainen, M. Duff, D. C. Goff, and D. L. Schacter
Aberrant Frontoparietal Function during Recognition Memory in Schizophrenia: A Multimodal Neuroimaging Investigation
J. Neurosci., September 9, 2009; 29(36): 11347 - 11359.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ScienceHome page
E. Koechlin and A. Hyafil
Anterior Prefrontal Function and the Limits of Human Decision-Making
Science, October 26, 2007; 318(5850): 594 - 598.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.