HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Postle, B. R. Articles by Tononi, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Postle, B. R. Articles by Tononi, G.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Dissociates Working Memory Manipulation from Retention Functions in the Prefrontal, but not Posterior Parietal, Cortex

University of Wisconsin

Reprints requests should be sent to Bradley R. Postle, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53726, USA, or via e-mail: postle{at}wisc.edu.

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Feredoes, G. Tononi, and B. R. Postle The Neural Bases of the Short-Term Storage of Verbal Information Are Anatomically Variable across Individuals J. Neurosci., October 10, 2007; 27(41): 11003 - 11008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Urgesi, B. Calvo-Merino, P. Haggard, and S. M. Aglioti Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reveals Two Cortical Pathways for Visual Body Processing J. Neurosci., July 25, 2007; 27(30): 8023 - 8030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]