Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Massihullah Hamidi
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2011) 23 (6): 1358–1367.
Published: 01 June 2011
FIGURES
| View All (5)
Abstract
View articletitled, A Common Neural Substrate for Language Production and Verbal Working Memory
View
PDF
for article titled, A Common Neural Substrate for Language Production and Verbal Working Memory
Verbal working memory (VWM), the ability to maintain and manipulate representations of speech sounds over short periods, is held by some influential models to be independent from the systems responsible for language production and comprehension [e.g., Baddeley, A. D. Working memory, thought, and action . New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007]. We explore the alternative hypothesis that maintenance in VWM is subserved by temporary activation of the language production system [Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 50–68, 2009b]. Specifically, we hypothesized that for stimuli lacking a semantic representation (e.g., nonwords such as mun ), maintenance in VWM can be achieved by cycling information back and forth between the stages of phonological encoding and articulatory planning. First, fMRI was used to identify regions associated with two different stages of language production planning: the posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) for phonological encoding (critical for VWM of nonwords) and the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) for lexical–semantic retrieval (not critical for VWM of nonwords). Next, in the same subjects, these regions were targeted with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) during language production and VWM task performance. Results showed that rTMS to the pSTG, but not the MTG, increased error rates on paced reading (a language production task) and on delayed serial recall of nonwords (a test of VWM). Performance on a lexical–semantic retrieval task (picture naming), in contrast, was significantly sensitive to rTMS of the MTG. Because rTMS was guided by language production-related activity, these results provide the first causal evidence that maintenance in VWM directly depends on the long-term representations and processes used in speech production.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2006) 18 (10): 1712–1722.
Published: 01 October 2006
Abstract
View articletitled, Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Dissociates Working Memory Manipulation from Retention Functions in the Prefrontal, but not Posterior Parietal, Cortex
View
PDF
for article titled, Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Dissociates Working Memory Manipulation from Retention Functions in the Prefrontal, but not Posterior Parietal, Cortex
Understanding the contributions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) to working memory is central to understanding the neural bases of high-level cognition. One question that remains controversial is whether the same areas of the dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC) that participate in the manipulation of information in working memory also contribute to its short-term retention (STR). We evaluated this question by first identifying, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), brain areas involved in manipulation. Next, these areas were targeted with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) while subjects performed tasks requiring only the STR or the STR plus manipulation of information in working memory. fMRI indicated that manipulation-related activity was independent of retention-related activity in both the PFC and superior parietal lobule (SPL). rTMS, however, yielded a different pattern of results. Although rTMS of the dlPFC selectively disrupted manipulation, rTMS of the SPL disrupted manipulation and STR to the same extent. rTMS of the postcentral gyrus (a control region) had no effect on performance. The implications of these results are twofold. In the PFC, they are consistent with the view that this region contributes more importantly to the control of information in working memory than to its STR. In the SPL, they illustrate the importance of supplementing the fundamentally correlational data from neuroimaging with a disruptive method, which affords stronger inference about structure-function relations.