Functional MRI of Macaque Monkeys Performing a Cognitive Set-Shifting Task

Nakahara, Kiyoshi; Hayashi, Toshihiro; Konishi, Seiki; Miyashita, Yasushi

doi:10.1126/science.1067653

Cited by 264 publications

(210 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The sole direct comparisons published to date reported only similarities between human and monkey prefrontal cortex (10). The present results suggest that, under evolutionary pressure, parietal but not earlier regions adapted to implement humanspecific abilities such as excellent motiondependent 3D vision for manipulating fine tools (supporting online text).…”

mentioning

confidence: 53%

Extracting 3D from Motion: Differences in Human and Monkey Intraparietal Cortex

Vanduffel

Fize

Peuskens

et al. 2002

Science

307

277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared three-dimensional structure-from-motion (3D-SFM) processing in awake monkeys and humans using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Occipital and midlevel extrastriate visual areas showed similar activation by 3D-SFM stimuli in both species. In contrast, intraparietal areas showed significant 3D-SFM activation in humans but not in monkeys. This suggests that human intraparietal cortex contains visuospatial processing areas that are not present in monkeys.To reconstruct the third dimension from a two-dimensional (2D) retinal image, our brain uses binocular as well as monocular cues such as shading, texture, and occlusion. Both humans and monkeys are also able to extract the 3D structure of an object from motion parallax cues that activate occipitoparietal areas in both species (1-3). Because neurons in the middle temporal area (MT/V5) are sensitive for speed gradients that reflect planes tilted in depth (4, see also 5), this area might play a crucial role in the extraction of depth from motion. Supporting evidence has been gleaned from a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study showing 3D-SFM sensitivity in the human MT/V5 complex (hMT/V5ϩ) (6 ). These human fMRI results raise a first question: To what extent can they be generalized to the primate visual system? Furthermore, anatomical evidence suggests that there might be functional differences between human and monkey intraparietal cortex: The intraparietal sulcus separates area 5 from area 7 in the monkey, whereas in humans these two areas belong to the superior parietal lobe. In addition, in humans, the intraparietal lobe separates area 7 from areas 39 and 40, which have no clear counterpart in monkeys (7 ). Therefore, our second goal was to determine whether monkey intraparietal cortex is as important for motion-dependent depth processing as implied by human imaging (6 ).To address these issues, we turned to recently developed fMRI techniques (8) in awake (9-12) rather than anesthetized (13-14 ) monkeys. By performing human fMRI with virtually identical experimental procedures as in the awake monkey fMRI experiments, reliable interspecies comparisons could be made.The stimuli were displays of nine randomly connected lines, rotating in depth, that created a clear 3D percept (movie S1). Control stimuli consisted of the same displays that were either static or moving in one plane. We controlled for potential attentional differences between the 3D and 2D conditions by using a 1-back task in humans, as well as a demanding high-acuity fixation task (8, 9) in both species.In line with earlier reports (4-6, 13), area MT/V5 was activated more by 3D than by 2D moving random-line displays. In addition, the area in the fundus of the superior temporal sulcus (FST) also exhibited significant 3D-SFM sensitivity (Fig. 1A). Figure 2A shows the (3D -2D) pattern of activation for a single human subject, and the average activation for a group of eight subjects is shown in Fig. 2B. These results are similar to those obtained in an earlier study in which so...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 53%

Extracting 3D from Motion: Differences in Human and Monkey Intraparietal Cortex

Vanduffel

Fize

Peuskens

et al. 2002

Science

307

277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This region is known to be activated during executive operations for response inhibition instantiated in common neuropsychological tasks such as the Stroop task and the Wisconsin card sorting task (Rushworth et al, 1997;Taylor et al, 1997;Konishi et al, 2002;Nakahara et al, 2002). In the context of memory retrieval, the region is activated during memory retrieval among competitive items (ThompsonSchill et al, 1997), with damage to this region leading to impaired performance of such tasks (Thompson-Schill et al, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural Correlates of Recency Judgment

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prefrontal cortex plays a critical role in recollecting the temporal context of past events. The present study used eventrelated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and explored the neural correlates of temporal-order retrieval during a recency judgment paradigm. In this paradigm, after study of a list of words presented sequentially, subjects were presented with two of the studied words simultaneously and were asked which of the two words was studied more recently. Two types of such retrieval trials with varied (high and low) levels of demand for temporal-order retrieval were intermixed and compared using event-related fMRI. The intraparadigm comparison of high versus low demand trials revealed brain regions with activation that was modulated on the basis of demand for temporal-order retrieval. Multiple lateral prefrontal regions including the middle and inferior lateral prefrontal cortex were prominently activated. Activation was also observed in the anterior prefrontal cortex and the medial temporal cortex, regions well documented to be related to memory retrieval in general. The modulation of brain activity in these regions suggests a detailed pathway that is engaged during recency judgment.Key words: recency; prefrontal; memory; retrieval; context; fMRIThe prefrontal cortex has been implicated in several types of mnemonic functions (Stuss and Benson, 1986;Fuster, 1997). Among them is recollection of the temporal context of past events, an ability that has most often been tested using recency judgment paradigms in which two events are to be judged as to which has occurred more recently (Yntema and Trask, 1963). Since the initial report in Milner (1971), several neuropsychological studies of humans and monkeys have provided evidence that damage to the lateral prefrontal cortex impairs temporal-order retrieval and that the effect of damage is greater in retrieving the temporal order of past events than in retrieving the past events themselves (Shimamura et al., 1990;Milner et al., 1991;Petrides, 1991;Butters et al., 1994). Previous neuroimaging studies investigating recency judgment used this temporal-order versus item retrieval contrast and revealed prefrontal activation associated with temporal-order retrieval relative to item retrieval (Eyler Zorrilla et al., 1996;Cabeza et al., 1997Cabeza et al., , 2000.The contrast of the dichotomous temporal-order versus item retrieval is useful in detecting functional characteristics that are differential among particular brain regions, as is most typically used in the demonstration of double dissociation between regions. However, this approach leaves unspecified the brain activity related to temporal-order retrieval itself at a whole-brain level because, for instance, it is possible that brain activity common to temporal-order and item retrieval is subtracted out even when the activity is related to temporal-order retrieval. An alternative approach complements the previous approach and allows us to uncover the whole neural correlates of temporal-order retr...

show abstract

“…The right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) exhibited just this property, with the reduction of neural activity from the first to the third retrieval practice attempt predicting forgetting in the subsequent final test. This region has often been implicated in a wide variety of executive control tasks (e.g., Bunge, Ochsner, Desmond, Glover, & Gabrieli, 2001;Garavan, Ross, Murphy, Roche, & Stein, 2002;Jonides, Smith, Marshuetz, Koeppe, & Reuter-Lorenz, 1998;Menon, Adleman, White, Glover, & Reiss, 2001;Nakahara, Hayashi, Konishi, & Miyashita, 2002;Shimamura, 2000).…”

Section: Inhibition In Selective Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%