Inhibitory attentional control in patients with frontal lobe damage

Dimitrov, Mariana; Nakic, Marina; Elpern-Waxman, Jordan; Granetz, Joy; O'Grady, J; Phipps, Michael; Milne, Elizabeth; Logan, Gordon D.; Hasher, Lynn; Grafman, Jordan

doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00080-0

Cited by 40 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decades of Stroop and Simon tasks (for a review, see MacLeod, 1991) demonstrate facilitation (faster RT) when stimulus and response are inherently related rather than arbitrary. What is more difficult to determine is whether the relationship between stimuli and responses also influenced estimates of SSRTs in the study by Aron et al The inhibitory speeds reported in that study are much faster than those reported here or in prior work using the stop signal task (i.e., Dimitrov et al, 2003;Rieger et al, 2003;Williams, Ponesse, Schacher, Logan, & Tannock, 1999). The reason for this remains unclear.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 60%

“…There is some limited evidence that inhibitory speed on the stop signal task is impaired after frontal lobe damage (although see Dimitrov et al, 2003). Rieger, Gauggel, and Burmeister (2003) found that right or bilateral frontal lobe lesions or basal ganglia damage produced slower SSRTs, but they did not attempt to identify more specific anatomical correlations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inhibitory Control is Slowed in Patients with Right Superior Medial Frontal Damage

Floden¹,

Stuss²

2006

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

239

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibitory control is an essential part of behavior. Comprehensive knowledge of the neural underpinnings will shed light on complex behavior, its breakdown in neurological and psychological disorders, and current and future techniques for the pharmacological or structural remediation of disinhibition. This study investigated the neural mechanisms involved in rapid response inhibition. The stop signal task was used to estimate inhibitory speed in a group of neurologically normal control subjects and patients with discrete frontal lobe lesions. Task procedures were controlled to rule out probable confounds related to strategic changes in task effort. The findings indicate that the frontal lobes are necessary for inhibitory control and, furthermore, that the integrity of the right superior medial frontal region is key for rapid inhibitory control under conditions controlling for strategically slow responses, forcing reliance more on a rapid, "kill-switch" inhibitory system. These results are interpreted within an anatomical framework of corticospinal motor control.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory Control is Slowed in Patients with Right Superior Medial Frontal Damage

Floden¹,

Stuss²

2006

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

239

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two behavioral indices, the inhibitory function and SSRT, have been widely used to describe impaired inhibitory control in people with neurological (Aron and Poldrack, 2005;Aron et al, 2003;Dimitrov et al, 2003;Reiman et al, 1997;Stewart and Tannock, 1999) or psychiatric conditions, including patients with SUDs (Armstrong and Munoz, 2003;Badcock et al, 2002;Dimoska et al, 2003;Li et al, 2006c;Monterosso et al, 2005;Oosterlaan and Sergeant, 1996;Overtoom et al, 2002;Rubia et al, 1998;Schachar et al, 1995). used a choice reaction stop-signal task to study inhibitory control in chronic cocaine users .…”

Section: Stop-signal Task As a Tool To Study Response Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory control and emotional stress regulation: Neuroimaging evidence for frontal–limbic dysfunction in psycho-stimulant addiction

Sinha

2008

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

305

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review focuses on neuroimaging studies that examined stress processing and regulation and cognitive inhibitory control in patients with psycho-stimulant addiction. We provide an overview of these studies, summarizing converging evidence and discrepancies as they occur in the literature. We also adopt an analytic perspective and dissect these psychological processes into their subcomponents, to identify the neural pathways specific to each component process and those that are more specifically involved in psycho-stimulant addiction. To this aim we refer frequently to studies conducted in healthy individuals. Despite the separate treatment of stress/affect regulation, stressrelated craving or compulsive drug seeking, and inhibitory control, neural underpinnings of these processes overlap significantly. In particular, the ventromedial prefrontal regions including the anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala and the striatum are implicated in psychostimulant dependence. Our overarching thesis is that prefrontal activity ensures intact emotional stress regulation and inhibitory control. Altered prefrontal activity along with heightened striatal responses to addicted drug and drug-related salient stimuli perpetuates habitual drug seeking. Further studies that examine the functional relationships of these neural systems will likely provide the key to understanding the mechanisms underlying compulsive drug use behaviors in psycho-stimulant dependence. Keywords fMRI; cognitive control; reward; motivation; affect; impulsivity; decision making; cocaine; methamphetamine The molecular and cellular neurobiology of drug addiction has recently been extensively reviewed in the literature (Di Chiara and Bassareo, 2007;Kalivas et al., 2005;Koob, 2006;Maldonado et al., 2006). Drawing heavily on rodent studies, previous reviews of the neuroscience of drug addiction have elaborated on the role of cortico-striatal pathways and extended amygdala circuitry in shaping habitual and compulsory drug use behaviors (Everitt et al., 2001;Everitt and Robbins, 2005;Everitt and Wolf, 2002;Koob, 2003;Koob, 2006; Address correspondence to: Dr. Chiang-shan Ray Li, Assistant Professor, Connecticut Mental Health Center, S103, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park Street New Haven, CT 06519,. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptNeurosci Biobehav Rev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 January 1. Published in final edited form as:Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008 ; 32(3): 581-597. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manusc...

show abstract

“…In particular, some patient studies have shown that impairments of inhibition are more likely after lesions of the right medial SFG (Floden and Stuss 2006) or left supplementary motor/dorsal premotor cortex (dPM) (Picton et al 2007), whereas other evidence suggests that inhibitory processes may be largely spared in many frontal patients (Dimitrov et al 2003). These inconsistencies between reports may have arisen due to differences in lesion focality, symptomatic co-morbidity, and the reorganizational capacity of intact brain regions (Rorden and Karnath 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociable Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Prefrontal and Premotor Cortex

Chambers

Bellgrove²,

Gould

et al. 2007

Journal of Neurophysiology

221

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intelligent behavior depends on the ability to suppress inappropriate actions and resolve interference between competing responses. Recent clinical and neuroimaging evidence has demonstrated the involvement of prefrontal, parietal, and premotor areas during behaviors that emphasize conflict and inhibition. It remains unclear, however, whether discrete subregions within this network are crucial for overseeing more specific inhibitory demands. Here we probed the functional specialization of human prefrontal cortex by combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with integrated behavioral measures of response inhibition (stop-signal task) and response competition (flanker task). Participants undertook a combined stop-signal/flanker task after rTMS of the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) or dorsal premotor cortex (dPM) in each hemisphere. Stimulation of the right IFG impaired stop-signal inhibition under conditions of heightened response competition but did not influence the ability to suppress a competing response. In contrast, stimulation of the right dPM facilitated execution but had no effect on inhibition. Neither of these results was observed during rTMS of corresponding left-hemisphere regions. Overall, our findings are consistent with existing evidence that the right IFG is crucial for inhibitory control. The observed double dissociation of neurodisruptive effects between the right IFG and right dPM further implies that response inhibition and execution rely on distinct neural processes despite activating a common cortical network. I N T R O D U C T I O NNeural mechanisms of cognitive control are essential to coordinate, execute and update behavior. A crucial feature of successful updating is the ability to inhibit thoughts and actions that are no longer appropriate or relevant. A large body of neuropsychological evidence has identified the human prefrontal cortex (PFC) and basal ganglia as especially crucial for response inhibition (see Aron et al. 2004 ;Hodgson et al. 2007 for recent reviews). Recent studies, for instance, have demonstrated that lesions to the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) can cause a deficit of response inhibition, as measured using tasks that require the cancellation of an initiated manual response (Aron et al. 2003) or the suppression of a reflexive saccade (Hodgson et al. 2007). Importantly, Aron et al. further showed that the magnitude of this deficit in the stop-signal paradigm can be predicted uniquely by the extent of damage to the right IFG but not the nearby middle frontal gyrus (MFG) or superior frontal gyrus (SFG).Despite the general agreement in the neuropsychological literature that the PFC is crucial for response inhibition, key questions remain concerning the specificity of the underlying control mechanism. In particular, some patient studies have shown that impairments of inhibition are more likely after lesions of the right medial SFG (Floden and Stuss 2006) or left supplementary motor/dorsal premotor cortex (dPM) (Picton et al. 2007), whereas other evidence s...

show abstract

Inhibitory attentional control in patients with frontal lobe damage

Cited by 40 publications

References 75 publications

Inhibitory Control is Slowed in Patients with Right Superior Medial Frontal Damage

Inhibitory Control is Slowed in Patients with Right Superior Medial Frontal Damage

Inhibitory control and emotional stress regulation: Neuroimaging evidence for frontal–limbic dysfunction in psycho-stimulant addiction

Dissociable Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Prefrontal and Premotor Cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About