A Developmental Functional MRI Study of Prefrontal Activation during Performance of a Go-No-Go Task

Abstract

This study examines important developmental differences in patterns of activation in the prefrontal cortex during performance of a Go-No-Go paradigm using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Eighteen subjects (9 children and 9 adults) were scanned using gradient echo, echo planar imaging during performance of a response inhibition task. The results suggest four general findings. First, the location of activation in the prefrontal cortex was not different between children and adults, which is similar to our earlier pediatric fMRI results of prefrontal activation during a working memory task (Casey et al., 1995). Second, the volume of activation was significantly greater for children relative to adults. These differences in volume of activation were observed predominantly in the dorsal and lateral prefrontal cortices. Third, although inhibitory processes have typically been associated with more ventral or orbital frontal regions, the current study revealed activation that was distributed across both dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices. Finally, consistent with animal and human lesion studies, activity in orbital frontal and anterior cingulate cortices correlated with behavioral performance (i.e., number of false alarms). These results further demonstrate the utility of this methodology in studying pediatric populations.

Sensitivity of prefrontal cortex to changes in target probability: A functional MRI study

“…This association has been argued most extensively in the context of the P300, an event-related potential (ERP) elicited by infrequent events. Neuroimaging studies [Grasby et al, 1993;Jonides et al, 1993;Cohen et al, 1994;McCarthy et al, 1994;Casey et al, 1995;Smith et al, 1995;Kawashima et al, 1996;Casey et al, 1997] together with physiological studies in monkeys [Niki, 1974;Mishkin and Manning, 1978;Goldman-Rakic, 1987;Fuster, 1988;Yajeya and Fuster, 1988] have largely focused on the involvement of frontal regions in higher cognitive processes such as working memory and inhibitory control. These studies provide better spatial resolution than do electrophysiology studies and suggest that different regions within prefrontal cortex are associated with different types of processing.…”

“…These studies provide better spatial resolution than do electrophysiology studies and suggest that different regions within prefrontal cortex are associated with different types of processing. For example, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been implicated in working memory [Goldman-Rakic, 1987;Fuster, 1988;Cohen et al, 1994;McCarthy et al, 1994;Smith et al, 1995], while more ventral regions of prefrontal cortex have been implicated in the suppression of prepotent responses as in the go/no-go task [Kawashima et al, 1996;Casey et al, 1997;Konishi et al, 1999]. Few imaging studies have examined the effects of manipulating target probability on these presumed prefrontal functions.…”

“…Previously, we have examined prefrontal activity to frequent targets in a go/no-go version of the oddball paradigm [Casey et al, 1997]. In that study, either all trials within a block were targets (100%) or half the trials in a block were targets (50%).…”

“…Accordingly, we hypothesized that this type of interference (between responses) would result in increased activity in the ventral prefrontal cortex. This prediction was based in part on the presumed role of ventral prefrontal cortex in suppression of prepotent responses as in the go/no-go task [Kawashima et al, 1996;Casey et al, 1997;Konishi et al, 1999].…”

Neural Correlates of Response Inhibition in Early Childhood: Evidence From a Go/No-Go Task

“…There is a parallel, protracted developmental trajectory of the prefrontal brain regions implicated in higher order cognitive functions (Fuster, 2002). Within the prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate, dorsolateral, ventrolateral, inferior frontal and medial prefrontal cortices have been identified as a part of the neural network underlying response inhibition (Casey et al, 1997; Rubia et al, 2001; Tamm, Menon, & Reiss, 2002). The immaturity of these regions in children may underlie the difficulties they face in inhibiting responses.…”