Processing of temporal duration information in working memory after frontodorsal tumour excisions

Brain and Cognition, v.50, 282-303 (2002) 01/2002;
Source: OAI



3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Frontal lobe patients reproduced a sequence of capital letters or abstract shapes. Immediate and delayed reproduction trials allowed the analysis of short- and long-term memory for time order by means of suitable Markov chain stochastic models. Patients were as proficient as healthy subjects on the immediate reproduction trial, thus showing spared encoding and short-term memory. They failed, instead, on the delayed trials with capital letters, but not with random shapes, suggesting that their long-term memory impairment did not depend on primary deficits for ordering, but on inability to benefit from the organisational strategies that improve the retention and retrieval in normal subjects.
    Brain and Cognition 09/2005; 58(3):286-99. DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.01.003 · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Auditory temporal processing was investigated in individuals with acquired aphasia using a task in which they were asked to detect brief silent gaps inserted between noise segments modeled after formants in speech. To examine within-channel gap detection, gaps of 10, 20, 40, and 80ms duration were inserted between an initial segment (IS) and a trailing segment (TS) centered at the same frequency (1kHz). In a between-channel gap detection condition, gaps of 20, 40, 80, and 100ms duration were inserted between an IS that differed in frequency (4kHz) from the TS (1kHz). The effect of gap onset timing was examined in both conditions by systematically varying the duration of the IS by 10, 20, or 40ms. A combined analysis revealed that for both conditions and all gap and IS durations, individuals with aphasia produced fewer correct responses than age-matched neurologically intact controls. Separate condition analyses revealed that when noise segments were centered at the same frequency, individuals with aphasia demonstrated poorer accuracy in detecting 40 and 80ms gaps relative to normal controls (p<0.001). When gaps were inserted between noise segments differing in frequency, on average, aphasic subjects performed less accurately at durations of 40, 80 and 100ms (p<0.025). Detection in both groups decreased with smaller IS durations. The difficulties with gap detection observed in the aphasic group suggest the existence of fundamental problems in processing the temporal form or microstructure of sounds characterized by rapidly changing onset dynamics.
    Neuropsychologia 03/2007; 45(5):1127-33. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.09.011 · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interval timing and working memory are critical components of cognition that are supported by neural oscillations in prefrontal-striatal-hippocampal circuits. In this review, the properties of interval timing and working memory are explored in terms of behavioral, anatomical, pharmacological, and neurophysiological findings. We then describe the various neurobiological theories that have been developed to explain these cognitive processes – largely independent of each other. Following this, a coupled excitatory-inhibitory oscillation (EIO) model of temporal processing is proposed to address the shared oscillatory properties of interval timing and working memory. Using this integrative approach, we describe a hybrid model explaining how interval timing and working memory can originate from the same oscillatory processes, but differ in terms of which dimension of the neural oscillation is utilized for the extraction of item, temporal order, and duration information. This extension of the striatal beat-frequency (SBF) model of interval timing (Matell and Meck, 2000, 2004) is based on prefrontal-striatal-hippocampal circuit dynamics and has direct relevance to the pathophysiological distortions observed in time perception and working memory in a variety of psychiatric and neurological conditions.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 01/2015; 48:160-185. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.008 · 8.80 Impact Factor