Brain, Vol. 122, No. 5, 981-991,
May 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press
Common inhibitory mechanism in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by event-related functional MRI
1 Department of Physiology, The University of Tokyo School of Medicine, Hongo, Tokyo, 2 Japan Science and Technology Corporation, Yushima, Tokyo and 3 National Institute for Physiological Sciences, Okazaki, Aichi, Japan
Correspondence to:
Seiki Konishi, MD, Department of Physiology, The University of Tokyo School of Medicine, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan E-mail: konishi{at}m.u-tokyo.ac.jp
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Inhibition of an ongoing reaction tendency for adaptation to changing environments is a major function of the human prefrontal cortex. This function has been investigated frequently using the go/no-go task and set-shifting tasks such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Studies in humans and monkeys suggest the involvement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the two task paradigms. However, it remains unknown where in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex this function is localized, whether a common inhibitory mechanism is used in these task paradigms and how this inhibitory function acts on two different targets, i.e. the go response in the go/no-go task and the cognitive set in the WCST. In the go/no-go task of this study, subjects were instructed to either respond (go trial) or not respond (no-go trial), depending on the cue stimulus presented. The signals of functional MRI (fMRI) related to the inhibitory function should be transient by nature. Thus, we used the temporal resolution of fMRI (event-related fMRI) by which transient signals in go and no-go trials can be analysed separately and compared with each other. We found a focus that showed transient no-go dominant activity in the posterior part of the inferior frontal sulcus in the right hemisphere. This was true irrespective of whether the subjects used their right or left hands. These results suggest that the transient activation in the right inferior prefrontal area is related to the neural mechanism underlying the response inhibition function. Furthermore, this area was found to be overlapped spatially with the area that was activated transiently during cognitive set shifting in the WCST. The transient signals in the go/no-go task peaked 5 s after the transient expression of the inhibitory function, and the transient signals in the WCST peaked 7 s after the transient expression, reflecting different durations of neuronal activity in the two inhibitory task paradigms. These results imply that the right inferior prefrontal area is commonly involved in the inhibition of different targets, i.e. the go response during performance of the go/no-go task and the cognitive set during performance of the WCST.
response inhibition; set shifting; event-related fMRI; prefrontal cortex; human
BA = Brodmann area; fMRI = functional MRI; MEG = magnetoencephalogram; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The prefrontal cortex enables us to make appropriate choices under changing situations (Milner, 1964
; Mishkin, 1964; Goldman-Rakic, 1987; Petrides, 1991; Passingham, 1993; Damasio, 1995; Frith and Dolan, 1996; Robbins, 1996; Fuster, 1997), especially by inhibiting inherent response tendency. This inhibitory function has been investigated frequently using the go/no-go task. In monkey studies using the go/no-go task, damage to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Iversen and Mishkin, 1970; Butters et al., 1973; Sasaki et al., 1989) has been shown to impair the response inhibition function. In humans, PET and functional (fMRI) studies (Kawashima et al., 1996; Casey et al., 1997) have reported dorsolateral prefrontal activation during mixed go/no-go trial blocks compared with during go trial blocks. EEG and magnetoencephalogram (MEG) recordings have revealed frontal-maximal differential potential between no-go and go trials, or the so-called `no-go potential' (Pfefferbaum et al., 1985; Kok, 1986; Gemba and Sasaki, 1989; Sasaki et al., 1996; Thorpe et al., 1996). However, the precise functional localization in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex remains unknown. In addition, the go/no-go task often has been thought to have aspects similar to set-shifting tasks such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), which have also been found to be implemented in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in both humans (Milner, 1963) and monkeys (Passingham, 1972; Dias et al., 1996, 1997). The neural mechanism for the inhibitory function required in these tasks is intriguing because they require the inhibitory function, but of different targets, i.e. the go response in the go/no-go task and the cognitive set in the WCST.
In the present study, in order to specify the locus of activation elicited by the inhibitory function, we utilized event-related fMRI (Blamire et al., 1992; Friston et al., 1994; Buckner et al., 1996; Konishi et al., 1996; Kim et al., 1997; Zarahn et al., 1997; Rosen et al., 1998). In the go/no-go task, subjects either responded (go trials) or withdrew a response (no-go trials), and these events were intermixed with each other, making them unpredictable. The activation of interest is the transient activation elicited by the inhibition of the go response in the no-go trials, which should be separated from and contrasted with the activation in the go trials. Event-related fMRI is suitable for analysis of the go/no-go task because it enables us to move away from the conventional blocked paradigm design (mixed go/no-go trial blocks) to a trial-by-trial analysis design (separated go or no-go trials). Using event-related fMRI (Fig. 1A), we analysed the fMRI data for the go and no-go trials separately, and attempted to identify the prefrontal areas in which brain activity in the no-go trials was dominant over that in go trials.
|
Furthermore, we directly compared the spatial extent of the areas activated by the go/no-go task with the areas activated by the set shifting in the WCST (Konishi et al., 1998b
). These two tasks may be related to each other in that they both should require the inhibitory function. However, they require the inhibition of different targets, i.e. the go response in the go/no-go task and the cognitive set in the WCST. We therefore tested whether these areas coincide or not. If the areas coincide, the area of coincidence may implement a common central mechanism for inhibition. If not, these areas may implement separate inhibitory mechanisms for each target. A preliminary report of this study has been published elsewhere (Konishi et al., 1998a). |
Material and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Behavioural paradigm
Computer graphics-based visual stimuli were projected onto a screen and the subjects in a supine position viewed the stimulus through prism glasses. In the go/no-go task, the subjects were instructed to fixate on a small cross located centrally on the screen, and a green or a red square (equally probable) was presented for 0.5 s over the cross once in a trial. In go trials, the go stimulus (green square) was presented and the subjects were instructed to respond by promptly pushing a button using their right or left thumbs, but in no-go trials, the no-go stimulus (red square) was presented and the subjects were instructed not to respond. A warning stimulus (brightening of the fixation cross for 2 s) appeared 6, 8 or 10 s (randomly) prior to the presentation of the go or no-go stimulus. In order to induce the response, i.e. the inhibition function, speed of decision was stressed and subjects were trained so that they achieved a reaction time of 350 ms and an 80% correct performance level. This training enhances the subjects' tendency to respond to the no-go stimulus, and promotes the reproducible expression of response inhibition in no-go trials. When the subjects responded in no-go trials or responded slowly in go trials, the trials were rejected. The percentage of correct trials was ~80–95%.
Subjects and fMRI
Six healthy volunteers (five males and one female, age 20–31 years) performed the go/no-go task. They were all right-handed as assessed by the Edinburgh Inventory (Oldfield, 1971). The experiments were undertaken with the understanding and written consent of each subject according to the declaration of Helsinki, and were approved by the institutional review board of the University of Tokyo School of Medicine.
A gradient echo echo-planar imaging sequence (repetition time = 2 s, flip angle = 90°) (Sakai et al., 1995a, b; Konishi et al., 1998a, b) at 1.5 T was used in this study. The range of z = 10–40 mm at y = 0 mm of Talairach's coordinates (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988) was covered by four contiguous transverse slices (slice thickness = 7.5 mm, in-plane resolution = 3 x 3 mm2, oblique by 10°). The range of z = 40–55 mm at y = 0 mm of Talairach's coordinates additionally was scanned in three subjects to cover the primary motor cortex. We could not scan the whole brain due to artefacts from nasal sinuses unsuitable for trial-based analysis in the present study. Thus, the activity in the orbito-frontal cortex, an area often associated with go/no-go tasks, would not have been seen. T1-weighted spin-echo images of the corresponding slices were taken every four runs to estimate head movement, and runs in which substantial head movement (>1.5 mm in any direction) had occurred were rejected. In a full experiment, we performed 12–16 runs, each of which consisted of three trials, and the total number of trials in a full experiment was ~40, ~20 each for go and no-go trials.
Data analysis
Image data for go and no-go trials were analysed separately using an event-related fMRI method (Blamire et al., 1992; Friston et al., 1994; Buckner et al., 1996; Konishi et al., 1996; Kim et al., 1997; Zarahn et al., 1997; Rosen et al., 1998). The time zero was defined as the time at the onset of the presentation of the go or no-go stimulus in each trial. To account for the different sampling times of different slices, pixel values were interpolated linearly. Then we calculated for each pixel the across-trial mean and variance of the difference between the images taken at each time point after time zero and the averaged images obtained from five time points before time zero, and applied the calculated pixel values to the paired t-test. Regions of four or more contiguous pixels above P < 0.005 (uncorrected) detected within the time window of 5–9 s after the go or no-go stimulus were regarded as activated areas.
Group analysis was conducted further to detect no-go dominant areas. Image data of each subject were aligned with a common standard atlas in two dimensions using AIR (automated image registration) (Woods et al., 1992). To evaluate go or no-go dominance of each pixel, the two-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) (trial type of go versus no-go x hand laterality of right versus left) was applied to the image data of each time point following subtraction of pixel values of image data obtained before time zero. Activation of four or more contiguous pixels above P < 0.005 (uncorrected) in the main effect of trial type (go versus no-go) was regarded as go or no-go dominant activity. The effects of hand laterality and the interaction were also tested.
The areas of interest in the go/no-go task were compared with the shift-related areas in the WCST, similarly to the strategy of cognitive conjunction (Price and Friston, 1997). The data of the WCST were provided from the 3D condition (7 s after dimensional changes) of our previous study of the WCST (Konishi et al., 1998b). Image data of these tasks were aligned in three dimensions commonly with the standard atlas used in the group analysis of the go/no-go task. To quantify the spatial overlap with several shift-related areas, the regions of interest were determined by the data of the WCST, and the significance level of go or no-go dominance was calculated using the two-way ANOVA. The coordinates of the regions of interest were calculated by linearly transforming the standard atlas into the atlas of Talairach and Tournoux (1988).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Behavioural data
The subjects were trained so that they could respond easily in ~300 ms after the stimulus onset. The correct performance was 86.7% (83.4 and 90.0% in go and no-go trials, respectively) when they used their right hands, and 90.0% (88.0 and 92.1% in go and no-go trials, respectively) when they used their left hands. Analysis of the performance data by the two-way ANOVA revealed no significant effect in either trial type (go or no-go trials) [F (1,20) = 2.62, P > 0.1] or hand laterality (right and left hand) [F (1,20) = 1.01, P > 0.2). The reaction time in correct go trials was 289 ± 20 ms when they used their right hands, and 287 ± 7 ms when they used their left hands. The distribution of the reaction time is shown in Fig. 1B
. The mean reaction time was not significantly different when they used their right or left hands (paired t-test, P > 0.5).
fMRI data
No-go dominant activity was detected reproducibly in the posterior part of the right inferior frontal sulcus. A typical example in one subject is shown in Fig. 2A. In this region, when the subject used the right thumb (Fig. 2A, left), significant brain activity was detected 5 s after the onset of the no-go stimulus but not for the go stimulus. This 5 s lag is consistent with the haemodynamic delay of fMRI signals elicited by short neuronal activity (Blamire et al., 1992; Friston et al., 1994; Buckner et al., 1996; Konishi et al., 1996; Kim et al., 1997; Zarahn et al., 1997). Similar results were obtained when the same subject used the left thumb (Fig. 2A, right). We did not detect reproducible go dominant brain activity in either the right or left hand condition. In particular, the primary motor area contralateral to the hand is expected to elicit go dominant activity. We determined the regions of interest of the thumb representation of the primary motor area in the central sulcus by mixing runs in which sustained thumb movement (repeated button pressing at 4 Hz for 10 s) was performed. As shown in Fig. 2B, no significant brain activity in go or no-go trials was observed in the regions of interest when the subjects used their right or left hands.
|
Group analysis of all six subjects using the two-way ANOVA was conducted to identify go or no-go dominant areas, as shown in Fig. 3
. No-go dominant activity was detected in the posterior part of the right inferior frontal sulcus (Fig. 3A and B). In this area, the difference in activation peaked 5 s after the onset of the no-go stimulus (Fig. 3C). The Talairach coordinates of the no-go dominant area were located at x = 41 mm, y = 16 mm, z = 19 mm (BA 45/44) [F (1,20) = 20.1]. No-go dominant activity was also found in the left inferior prefrontal area, although less significant than in the right. No other significant effect in the two-way ANOVA was detected in the effect of trial type, hand laterality or the interaction.
|
Comparison with the results of the WCST
The posterior part of the inferior frontal sulcus is also activated transiently during set shifting in the WCST (Konishi et al., 1998b
). Therefore, we examined the spatial relationship between the transient activation elicited by the two task paradigms. Image data of these tasks were aligned commonly with the standard atlas used in Fig. 3. A typical example in one subject is shown in Fig. 4. In the go/no-go task, the no-go dominant activity peaked 5 s after the onset of the no-go stimulus, whereas in the WCST the shift-related activity peaked 7 s after the onset of set shifting. In the right frontal sulcus, the activated areas of the peak time points in the two task paradigms overlapped well with each other. These results were also true for the results of group analysis as shown in Fig. 5. In fact, the peak pixel of the no-go dominant area (5 s) coincided exactly with the peak pixel of the shift-related area (7 s) (x = 41 mm, y = 16 mm, z = 19 mm). In the left hemisphere, the peak did not coincide. To quantify the overlap, we used the two-way ANOVA and calculated the no-go dominance in the regions of interest determined by the data of the WCST. The results of these areas are listed in Table 1. As expected from the exact coincidence of the peaks, the right inferior prefrontal area was highly no-go dominant [trial type: F(1,20) = 17.31, P < 0.001; hand laterality: F(1,20) = 0.53, P > 0.4; interaction: F(1,20) = 0.03, P > 0.5]. In addition, the left inferior prefrontal area was also significantly no-go dominant [trial type: F(1,20) = 7.49, P < 0.05; hand laterality: F(1,20) = 0.01, P > 0.5; interaction: F(1,20) = 0.14, P > 0.5], though the no-go dominance does not hold after fivefold Bonferoni correction. In contrast, the areas in posterior cortices were not no-go dominant.
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The use of event-related fMRI isolated transient activation related to inhibition of the go response and determined the functional localization in the posterior part of the right inferior frontal sulcus. This inferior prefrontal area was also activated transiently during set shifting in the WCST, suggesting that the inferior prefrontal area implements inhibition of both the go response and the cognitive set.
Application of event-related fMRI
The event-related fMRI fits well for the go/no-go task because this task requires transient expression of inhibitory function. The transient inhibitory function cannot be invoked simply by repetition of the same kind of trials but can be invoked by intermixing different kinds of trials that should be separated and contrasted with each other. The same is true of the WCST, in which the shift-related signal is transient by nature and cannot be sustained. The transient signals in the go/no-go task and the WCST peaked at different time points, i.e. 5 s after the onset of the no-go stimulus in the go/no-go task and 7 s after the onset of set shifting in the WCST. A likely explanation would be that the different time courses were derived from different durations of neuronal activity in these tasks. In the go/no-go task, the inhibitory function should act very briefly. In fact, according to EEG and MEG studies (Pfefferbaum et al., 1985; Kok, 1986; Gemba and Sasaki, 1989; Sasaki et al., 1996; Thorpe et al., 1996), the neuronal activity lasts only ~100 ms. On the other hand, set shifting in the WCST was estimated to continue for ~3 s (Konishi et al., 1998b). It is known that the time course of haemodynamic responses can be obtained by convolving the neural activity with the haemodynamic impulse response function (Friston et al., 1994; Boynton et al., 1996). Therefore, the longer delay of the peak in the WCST would be derived from the longer neuronal activity related to the set shifting. This explanation is consistent with our previous study of different time courses of haemodynamic responses elicited by two durations (0.2 versus 2.0 s) of visual stimulation (Konishi et al., 1996).
Functional lateralization of no-go dominant activity
The no-go dominant activity was found in the posterior part of the inferior frontal sulcus of the right hemisphere and, less reliably, of the left hemisphere. The bilateral observation of the no-go dominant activity in this study is consistent with the bilateral observation of the `no-go potential' in EEG and MEG studies (Pfefferbaum et al., 1985; Kok, 1986; Gemba and Sasaki, 1989; Sasaki et al., 1996; Thorpe et al., 1996). Therefore, our results suggest that the posterior part of the inferior frontal sulci is the electrical source of the no-go potential. However, the right hemisphere dominance of the no-go dominant activity was clear. This is consistent with the observation of a previous PET study reporting that the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex had many more activation foci than the left (Kawashima et al., 1996).
Theoretical interpretation of no-go dominant activity
The go/no-go task involves basic inhibitory mechanisms in the simplest context (Iversen and Mishkin, 1970; Butters et al., 1973; Sasaki et al., 1989). In the go/no-go task of this study, the go and no-go trials were given randomly with equal probability, and no feedback was provided in go or no-go trials. Importantly, the subjects were instructed to respond promptly in go trials, maintaining the set of the go response in both the go and no-go trials. This instruction requires subjects to overcome this motor set of the go response in the no-go trials. Therefore, in the go/no-go task of this study, motor set shifting, in addition to response inhibition, may contribute to the no-go dominant activity. This view is supported by the spatial overlap of the no-go dominant focus with the areas activated by the WCST in which cognitive set shifting is required (see Figs 4 and 5).
This task may also have another aspect. Since no feedback was provided in go or no-go trials, the go/no-go task in this study would correspond to a symmetrically reinforced variant of the task. Therefore, the go/no-go task in this study would have an aspect of conditional motor discrimination often investigated in monkey lesion studies (Passingham, 1993). However, it is unlikely that the conditional aspect of this task essentially contributed to the no-go dominant activity in the inferior prefrontal area of the present study. In fact, the superior branch of the arcuate sulcus (areas 6 and 8) of macaque monkeys is regarded as the critical focus of the conditional tasks (Goldman and Rosvold, 1970; Halsband and Passingham, 1985; Petrides, 1986), and the monkey arcuate cortex would not correspond to the human inferior prefrontal area of this study (Petrides and Pandya, 1994; Rajkowska and Goldman-Rakic, 1995). There was no no-go dominant activity in the human Brodmann area (BA) 6/8 (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988) detected in this study. This is consistent with the facts that the effects of arcuate lesion have been observed mainly during learning to achieve criteria (Goldman and Rosvold, 1970; Halsband and Passingham, 1985; Petrides, 1986) and that the difference in performance between go and no-go trials was reported for lesions to the inferior convexity (Iversen and Mishkin, 1970).
Inhibitory function in human inferior prefrontal cortex
The go/no-go task and the WCST are the major task paradigms used to investigate the inhibitory function of the human prefrontal cortex. Subjects were required to inhibit the go response in the go/no-go task and the cognitive set in the WCST. Comparison of the spatial extent of the no-go dominant areas with the shift-related areas revealed a substantial overlap in the posterior part of the right inferior frontal sulcus. These results suggest that the inhibition of the go response and of the cognitive set share a common neural mechanism implemented in this area.
Recent event-related fMRI studies of working memory (Cohen et al., 1997; Courtney et al., 1997) have reported activation of virtually the same area as the no-go dominant area of the present study in the posterior part of the right inferior frontal sulcus. This area showed sustained activity during the memory delay interval of the working memory tasks. However, the memory delay component of fMRI signals in this area was smaller than that in other prefrontal areas located more anteriorly (BA 9, 46 and 47) (Cohen et al., 1997; Courtney et al., 1997). This observation suggests that although the inferior prefrontal area may implement retention of working memory, the area also has some functions other than retention of working memory. A likely possibility would be that the area implements updating, instead of retention, of the contents of working memory (Goldman-Rakic, 1987; Funahashi and Kubota, 1994). This view is consistent with a recent lesion study (Rushworth et al., 1997) showing that the posterior part of the inferior convexity (area 45) of macaque monkeys is not essential for the retention of working memory, assuming that BA 45/44 of human brain corresponds functionally to area 45 of the monkey brain (Petrides and Pandya, 1994; Rajkowska and Goldman-Rakic, 1995). Taken together, we suggest that the inferior prefrontal area implements updating of temporarily maintained internal states such as working memory contents, cognitive set and motor set.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
S.K. is supported by the JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists. This work was supported by a grant-in-aid for Specially Promoted Research (07102006) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture to Y.M, and by grants from Nissan Science Foundation and Japan Brain Foundation to Y.M.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Blamire AM, Ogawa S, Ugurbil K, Rothman D, McCarthy G, Ellermann JM, et al. Dynamic mapping of the human visual cortex by high-speed magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89: 11069–73.
Boynton GM, Engel SA, Glover GH, Heeger DJ. Linear systems analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging in human V1. J Neurosci 1996; 16: 4207–21.
Buckner RL, Bandettini PA, O'Craven KM, Savoy RL, Petersen SE, Raichle ME, et al. Detection of cortical activation during averaged single trials of a cognitive task using functional magnetic resonance imaging [see comments]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93: 14878–83. Comment in: Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93: 14302–3.
Butters N, Butter CM, Rosen J, Stein D. Behavioral effects of sequential and one-stage ablations of orbital prefrontal cortex in the monkey. Exp Neurol 1973; 39: 204–14.[ISI][Medline]
Casey BJ, Trainor R, Orendi J, Schubert A, Nystrom LE, Giedd J, et al. A developmental functional MRI study of prefrontal activation during performance of a go–no-go task. J Cogn Neurosci 1997; 9: 835–47.[Abstract]
Cohen JD, Perlstein WM, Braver TS, Nystrom LE, Noll DC, Jonides J, et al. Temporal dynamics of brain activation during a working memory task [see comments]. Nature 1997; 386: 604–8. Comment in: Nature 1997; 386: 559–60.[Medline]
Courtney SM, Ungerleider LG, Keil K, Haxby JV. Transient and sustained activity in a distributed neural system for human working memory [see comments]. Nature 1997; 386: 608–11. Comment in: Nature 1997; 386: 559–60.[Medline]
Damasio AR. On some functions of the human prefrontal cortex. [Review]. Ann NY Acad Sci 1995; 769: 241–51.[ISI][Medline]
Dias R, Robbins TW, Roberts AC. Dissociation in prefrontal cortex of affective and attentional shifts. Nature 1996; 380: 69–72.[Medline]
Dias R, Robbins TW, Roberts AC. Dissociable forms of inhibitory control within prefrontal cortex with an analog of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: restriction to novel situations and independence from `on-line' processing. J Neurosci 1997; 17: 9285–97.
Friston KJ, Jezzard P, Turner R. Analysis of functional MRI time-series. Hum Brain Mapp 1994; 1: 153–71.
Frith C, Dolan R. The role of the prefrontal cortex in higher cognitive functions. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 1996; 5: 175–81.[Medline]
Funahashi S, Kubota K. Working memory and prefrontal cortex. [Review]. Neurosci Res 1994; 21: 1–11.[ISI][Medline]
Fuster JM, The prefrontal cortex. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1997.
Gemba H, Sasaki K. Potential related to no-go reaction of go/no-go hand movement task with color discrimination in human. Neurosci Lett 1989; 101: 263–8.[ISI][Medline]
Goldman PS, Rosvold HE. Localization of function within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the rhesus monkey. Exp Neurol 1970; 27: 291–304.[ISI][Medline]
Goldman-Rakic PS. Circuitry of primate prefrontal cortex and regulation of behavior by representational memory. In: Mountcastle VB, Plum F, Geiger SR, editors. Handbook of physiology, Sect. 1, Vol. 5, Pt. 1. Bethesda (MD): American Physiological Society; 1987. p. 373–417.
Halsband U, Passingham RE. Premotor cortex and the conditions for movement in monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Behav Brain Res 1985; 18: 269–77.[ISI][Medline]
Iversen SD, Mishkin M. Perseverative interference in monkeys following selective lesions of the inferior prefrontal convexity. Exp Brain Res 1970; 11: 376–86.[ISI][Medline]
Kawashima R, Satoh K, Itoh H, Ono S, Furumoto S, Gotoh R, et al. Functional anatomy of GO/NO-GO discrimination and response selection—a PET study in man. Brain Res 1996; 728: 79–89.[ISI][Medline]
Kim SG, Richter W, Ugurbil K. Limitations of temporal resolution in functional MRI. Magn Resonance Med 1997; 37: 631–6.
Kok A. Effects of degradation of visual stimulation on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in go/no-go reaction tasks. Biol Psychol 1986; 23: 21–38.[ISI][Medline]
Konishi S, Yoneyama R, Itagaki H, Uchida I, Nakajima K, Kato H, et al. Transient brain activity used in magnetic resonance imaging to detect functional areas. Neuroreport 1996; 8: 19–23.[ISI][Medline]
Konishi S, Nakajima K, Uchida I, Sekihara K, Miyashita Y. No-go dominant brain activity in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Neurosci 1998a; 10: 1209–13.[ISI][Medline]
Konishi S, Nakajima K, Uchida I, Kameyama M, Nakahara K, Sekihara K, et al. Transient activation of inferior prefrontal cortex during cognitive set shifting. Nature Neurosci 1998b; 1: 80–4.[ISI][Medline]
Milner B. Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting. Arch Neurol 1963; 9: 90–100.
Milner B. Some effects of frontal lobectomy in man. In: Warren JM, Akert K, editors. The frontal granular cortex and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964. p. 313–34.
Mishkin M. Perseveration of central sets after frontal lesions in monkeys. In: Warren JM, Akert K, editors. The frontal granular cortex and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964. p. 219–41.
Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971; 9: 97–113.[ISI][Medline]
Passingham RE. Non-reversal shifts after selective prefrontal ablations in monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Neuropsychologia 1972; 10: 41–6.[ISI][Medline]
Passingham R. The frontal lobes and voluntary action. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
Petrides M. The effect of periarcuate lesions in the monkey on the performance of symmetrically and asymmetrically reinforced visual and auditory go, no-go tasks. J Neurosci 1986; 6: 2054–63.[Abstract]
Petrides M. Frontal lobes and memory. In: Boller F, Grafman J, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1991. p. 75–90.
Petrides M, Pandya DN. Comparative architectonic analysis of the human and the macaque frontal cortex. In: Boller F, Grafman J, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology, Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994. p. 17–58.
Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Weller BJ, Kopell BS. ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985; 60: 423–34.[ISI][Medline]
Price CJ, Friston KJ. Cognitive conjunction: a new approach to brain activation experiments. Neuroimage 1997; 5: 261–70.[ISI][Medline]
Rajkowska G, Goldman-Rakic PS. Cytoarchitectonic definition of prefrontal areas in the normal human cortex: II. Variability in locations of areas 9 and 46 and relationship to the Talairach Coordinate System. Cereb Cortex 1995; 5: 323–37.
Robbins TW. Dissociating executive functions of the prefrontal cortex. [Review]. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1996; 351: 1463–70.[ISI][Medline]
Rosen BR, Buckner RL, Dale AM. Event-related functional MRI: past, present, and future. [Review]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 95: 773–80.
Rushworth MF, Nixon PD, Eacott MJ, Passingham RE. Ventral prefrontal cortex is not essential for working memory. J Neurosci 1997; 17: 4829–38.
Sakai K, Watanabe E, Onodera Y, Itagaki H, Yamamoto E, Koizumi H, et al. Functional mapping of the human somatosensory cortex with echo-planar MRI. Magn Resonance Med 1995a; 33: 736–43.
Sakai K, Watanabe E, Onodera Y, Uchida I, Kato H, Yamamoto E, et al. Functional mapping of the human colour centre with echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1995b; 261: 89–98.[Medline]
Sasaki K, Gemba H, Tsujimoto T. Suppression of visually initiated hand movement by stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in the monkey. Brain Res 1989; 495: 100–7.[ISI][Medline]
Sasaki K, Nambu A, Tsujimoto T, Matsuzaki R, Kyuhou S, Gemba H. Studies on integrative functions of the human frontal association cortex with MEG. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 1996; 5: 165–74.[Medline]
Talairach J, Tournoux P, editors. Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. Stuttgart: Thieme; 1988.
Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C. Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 1996; 381: 520–2.[Medline]
Woods RP, Cherry SR, Mazziotta JC. Rapid automated algorithm for aligning and reslicing PET images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992; 16: 620–33.[ISI][Medline]
Zarahn E, Aguirre G, D'Esposito M. A trial-based experimental design for fMRI. Neuroimage 1997; 6: 122–38.[ISI][Medline]
Received December 21, 1998. Accepted January 14, 1999.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Chikazoe, K. Jimura, T. Asari, K.-i. Yamashita, H. Morimoto, S. Hirose, Y. Miyashita, and S. Konishi Functional Dissociation in Right Inferior Frontal Cortex during Performance of Go/No-Go Task Cereb Cortex, January 1, 2009; 19(1): 146 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. S. Dichter, J. N. Felder, J. W. Bodfish, L. Sikich, and A. Belger Mapping social target detection with functional magnetic resonance imaging Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, November 16, 2008; (2008) nsn037v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. van Gaal, K. R. Ridderinkhof, J. J. Fahrenfort, H. S. Scholte, and V. A. F. Lamme Frontal Cortex Mediates Unconsciously Triggered Inhibitory Control J. Neurosci., August 6, 2008; 28(32): 8053 - 8062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Miller, R. L. Collins, and T. A. Kent Language and the Modulation of Impulsive Aggression J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci, August 1, 2008; 20(3): 261 - 273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Xue, A. R. Aron, and R. A. Poldrack Common Neural Substrates for Inhibition of Spoken and Manual Responses Cereb Cortex, August 1, 2008; 18(8): 1923 - 1932. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. R. E. Wilson and D. Gaffan Prefrontal-Inferotemporal Interaction Is Not Always Necessary for Reversal Learning J. Neurosci., May 21, 2008; 28(21): 5529 - 5538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Ettinger, D. H. ffytche, V. Kumari, N. Kathmann, B. Reuter, F. Zelaya, and S. C. R. Williams Decomposing the Neural Correlates of Antisaccade Eye Movements Using Event-Related fMRI Cereb Cortex, May 1, 2008; 18(5): 1148 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. S. LOCKE and T. S. BRAVER Motivational influences on cognitive control: Behavior, brain activation, and individual differences Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, March 1, 2008; 8(1): 99 - 112. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Tanji and E. Hoshi Role of the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex in Executive Behavioral Control Physiol Rev, January 1, 2008; 88(1): 37 - 57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. D. Chambers, M. A. Bellgrove, I. C. Gould, T. English, H. Garavan, E. McNaught, M. Kamke, and J. B. Mattingley Dissociable Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Prefrontal and Premotor Cortex J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2007; 98(6): 3638 - 3647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. R. Aron, S. Durston, D. M. Eagle, G. D. Logan, C. M. Stinear, and V. Stuphorn Converging Evidence for a Fronto-Basal-Ganglia Network for Inhibitory Control of Action and Cognition J. Neurosci., October 31, 2007; 27(44): 11860 - 11864. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.-C. Leung and W. Cai Common and Differential Ventrolateral Prefrontal Activity during Inhibition of Hand and Eye Movements J. Neurosci., September 12, 2007; 27(37): 9893 - 9900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. L Wolf Revisiting Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy: Are We Too Smitten With the Mitten? Is All Nonuse "Learned"? and Other Quandaries Physical Therapy, September 1, 2007; 87(9): 1212 - 1223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. R. Aron The Neural Basis of Inhibition in Cognitive Control Neuroscientist, June 1, 2007; 13(3): 214 - 228. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Hodgson, M. Chamberlain, B. Parris, M. James, N. Gutowski, M. Husain, and C. Kennard The role of the ventrolateral frontal cortex in inhibitory oculomotor control Brain, June 1, 2007; 130(6): 1525 - 1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Heinen, J. Rowland, B.-T. Lee, and A. R. Wade An Oculomotor Decision Process Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging J. Neurosci., December 27, 2006; 26(52): 13515 - 13522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. B. Smith, E. Taylor, M. Brammer, B. Toone, and K. Rubia Task-Specific Hypoactivation in Prefrontal and Temporoparietal Brain Regions During Motor Inhibition and Task Switching in Medication-Naive Children and Adolescents With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Am J Psychiatry, June 1, 2006; 163(6): 1044 - 1051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|