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

Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York 10021, USA.
Human Brain Mapping (Impact Factor: 6.92). 05/2001; 13(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.1022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Electrophysiological studies suggest sensitivity of the prefrontal cortex to changes in the probability of an event. The purpose of this study was to determine if subregions of the prefrontal cortex respond differentially to changes in target probabilities using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Ten right-handed adults were scanned using a gradient-echo, echo planar imaging sequence during performance of an oddball paradigm. Subjects were instructed to respond to any letter but "X". The frequency of targets (i.e., any letter but X) varied across trials. The results showed that dorsal prefrontal regions were active during infrequent events and ventral prefrontal regions were active during frequent events. Further, we observed an inverse relation between the dorsal and ventral prefrontal regions such that when activity in dorsal prefrontal regions increased, activity in ventral prefrontal regions decreased, and vice versa. This finding may index competing cognitive processes or capacity limitations. Most importantly, these findings taken as a whole suggest that any simple theory of prefrontal cortex function must take into account the sensitivity of this region to changes in target probability.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Autism is marked by impairments in social reciprocity and communication, along with restricted, repetitive and stereotyped behaviors. Prior studies have separately investigated social processing and executive function in autism, but little is known about the brain mechanisms of cognitive control for both emotional and nonemotional stimuli. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to identify differences in neurocircuitry between individuals with high functioning autism (HFA) and neurotypical controls during two versions of a go/no-go task: emotional (fear and happy faces) and nonemotional (English letters). During the letter task, HFA participants showed hypoactivation in ventral prefrontal cortex. During the emotion task, happy faces elicited activation in ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens and anterior amygdala in neurotypical, but not HFA, participants. Response inhibition for fear faces compared with happy faces recruited occipitotemporal regions in HFA, but not neurotypical, participants. In a direct contrast of emotional no-go and letter no-go blocks, HFA participants showed hyperactivation in extrastriate cortex and fusiform gyrus. Accuracy for emotional no-go trials was negatively correlated with activation in fusiform gyrus in the HFA group. These results indicate that autism is associated with abnormal processing in socioemotional brain networks, and support the theory that autism is marked by a social motivational deficit. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 03/2015; 60. DOI:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2015.03.001 · 4.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated cognitive control of social and nonsocial information in autism using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and a neurotypical control group completed an oddball target detection task where target stimuli were either faces or nonsocial objects previously shown to be related to circumscribed interests in autism. The ASD group demonstrated relatively increased activation to social targets in right insular cortex and in left superior frontal gyrus and relatively decreased activation to nonsocial targets related to circumscribed interests in multiple frontostriatal brain regions. Findings suggest that frontostriatal recruitment during cognitive control in ASD is contingent on stimulus type, with increased activation for social stimuli and decreased activation for nonsocial stimuli related to circumscribed interests.
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 05/2013; 43(12). DOI:10.1007/s10803-013-1837-4 · 3.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The significance of stimuli is linked not only to their nature but also to the sequential structure in which they are embedded, which gives rise to contingency rules. Humans have an extraordinary ability to extract and exploit these rules, as exemplified by the role of grammar and syntax in language. To study the brain representations of contingency rules, we recorded ERPs and event-related optical signal (EROS; which uses near-infrared light to measure the optical changes associated with neuronal responses). We used sequences of high- and low-frequency tones varying according to three contingency rules, which were orthogonally manipulated and differed in processing requirements: A Single Repetition rule required only template matching, a Local Probability rule required relating a stimulus to its context, and a Global Probability rule could be derived through template matching or with reference to the global sequence context. ERP activity at 200-300 msec was related to the Single Repetition and Global Probability rules (reflecting access to representations based on template matching), whereas longer-latency activity (300-450 msec) was related to the Local Probability and Global Probability rules (reflecting access to representations incorporating contextual information). EROS responses with corresponding latencies indicated that the earlier activity involved the superior temporal gyrus, whereas later responses involved a fronto-parietal network. This suggests that the brain can simultaneously hold different models of stimulus contingencies at different levels of the information processing system according to their processing requirements, as indicated by the latency and location of the corresponding brain activity.
    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 03/2012; 24(9):1941-59. DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_00229 · 4.69 Impact Factor


Available from