Interactions of prefrontal cortex in relation to awareness in sensory learning

Science

Volumn 284, Issue 5419, 1999, Pages 1531-1533

  McIntosh, Anthony Randal ^a   Rajah, M Natasha ^a   Lobaugh, Nancy J ^a  

^a ROTMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BRAIN BLOOD FLOW; CEREBELLUM; COGNITION; HUMAN; LEARNING; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSORY NERVE; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; AWARENESS; BRAIN; CEREBROVASCULAR CIRCULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED;

EID: 0033612323     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5419.1531     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. P. S. Wong, E. Bernat, S. Bunce, H. Shevrin, Consciousness Cogn. 6, 519 (1997).
2. C. Davey, Cognitive Processes and Pavlovian Conditioning in Humans (Wiley, New York, 1987).
3. R. E. Clark and L. R. Squire, Science 280, 77 (1998).
4. Greater activity in motor, dorsal prefrontal, and temporal cortex was observed in aware subjects in a sequence-learning task compared with unaware subjects, but learning and performance were equivalent in both groups [S. T. Grafton, E. Hazeltine, R. Ivry, J. Cogn. Neurosci. 7, 497 (1995)].
5. D. T. Stuss, T. P. Picton, M. P. Alexander, in The frontal Lobes and Neuropsychiatric Illness, S. Salloway, P. Malloy, J. Duffy, Eds. (American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DC, in press).
6. R. T. Knight, M. F. Grabowecky, D. Scabini, Adv. Neurol. 66, 21 (1995).
7. F. Crick and C. Koch, Nature 375, 121 (1995); T. W. Picton and D. T. Stuss, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 4, 256 (1994); G. Tononi and G. M. Edelman, Science 282, 1846 (1998).
8. F. Crick and C. Koch, Nature 375, 121 (1995); T. W. Picton and D. T. Stuss, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 4, 256 (1994); G. Tononi and G. M. Edelman, Science 282, 1846 (1998).
9. F. Crick and C. Koch, Nature 375, 121 (1995); T. W. Picton and D. T. Stuss, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 4, 256 (1994); G. Tononi and G. M. Edelman, Science 282, 1846 (1998).
10. M. M. Mesulam, Brain 121, 1013 (1998).
11. Subjects (n = 12, seven males, 22 to 35 years, senior university students) pressed a keyboard button when a target stimulus appeared on a computer screen. The two visual stimuli were highly discriminable circles (13° visual angle) [A. R. McIntosh, R. Cabeza, N. J. Lobaugh, F. L Bookstein, S. Houle, Cereb. Cortex 8, 648 (1998)]. Subjects were informed that two tones would be presented through headphones (Tone+ = 2500 Hz FM, Tone-= 750 Hz FM, equated for perceived intensity), but were not instructed further about their significance. Stimulus durations were 500 ms; on paired auditory-visual trials, the auditory stimulus preceded the visual stimulus by 250 ms. The average intertrial interval was 7 s (range of 4 to 12 s). The eight 180-trial training blocks of ∼11 min contained randomized sequences of paired auditory-visual trials mixed with unpaired presentations of all four stimuli. Scans immediately followed each training block and contained 10 presentations of one stimulus type. The first and last scans were of the visual distractor alone. The remaining six scans alternated between Tone+ alone and Tone-alone. Thus, because the visual target was never presented during a scan, motor responses were not required during any scans. The Tone+ predicted either visual stimulus on 77% of trials, and the Tone-predicted either visual stimulus on 11% of trials. These probabilities were used to ensure that the presentation of isolated stimuli during the scans was not a novel event. A 1-min break period followed each scan, and subjects rated the subjective salience of each stimulus, After the experiment, subjects were questioned to determine whether they were aware of stimulus contingencies and then debriefed. Six subjects were classified as AWARE and six as UNAWARE; there were no group differences in sex, age, education, or apparent motivation. Written informed consent was obtained, and subjects were paid. The Human Subjects Use Committee of Baycrest Centre approved the protocol.
12. 2O for each scan, using radioactive counts to approximate rCBF. Images were corrected for movement using AIR 3.0 [R. P. Woods, S. R. Cherry, J. C. Mazziotta, J. Comput. Assisted Tomogr. 16, 620 (1992)], transformed to a PET rCBF template conforming to a standard human brain atlas [J. Talairach and P. Tournoux, Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain (Thieme, New York, 1988)], and smoothed with a 10-mm isotropic Gaussian filter using SPM95 [K. J. Fristen et al., Hum. Brain Mapp. 2, 165 (1995)].
13. 2O for each scan, using radioactive counts to approximate rCBF. Images were corrected for movement using AIR 3.0 [R. P. Woods, S. R. Cherry, J. C. Mazziotta, J. Comput. Assisted Tomogr. 16, 620 (1992)], transformed to a PET rCBF template conforming to a standard human brain atlas [J. Talairach and P. Tournoux, Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain (Thieme, New York, 1988)], and smoothed with a 10-mm isotropic Gaussian filter using SPM95 [K. J. Fristen et al., Hum. Brain Mapp. 2, 165 (1995)].
14. 2O for each scan, using radioactive counts to approximate rCBF. Images were corrected for movement using AIR 3.0 [R. P. Woods, S. R. Cherry, J. C. Mazziotta, J. Comput. Assisted Tomogr. 16, 620 (1992)], transformed to a PET rCBF template conforming to a standard human brain atlas [J. Talairach and P. Tournoux, Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain (Thieme, New York, 1988)], and smoothed with a 10-mm isotropic Gaussian filter using SPM95 [K. J. Fristen et al., Hum. Brain Mapp. 2, 165 (1995)].
15. The functional images were compared between groups using a repeated-measures ANOVA with permutation tests to assess significance at each voxel (uncorrected P < 0.001). The design matrix included contrasts for a general time effect across all eight scans, one contrasting the difference between auditory and visual stimulation, two acquisition contrasts comparing Tone+ and Tone-differences, and the interactions of these with group. The voxels that were significant for the group by acquisition interaction are discussed.
16. T. Shallice and P. Burgess, in Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, A. L. Benton, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1991), pp. 125-138; D. T. Stuss and D. F. Benson, in The Frontal Lobes Revisited, E. Perecman, Ed. (Institute for Research on Behavioral Neuroscience Press, New York, 1987), pp. 141-158.
17. T. Shallice and P. Burgess, in Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, A. L. Benton, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1991), pp. 125-138; D. T. Stuss and D. F. Benson, in The Frontal Lobes Revisited, E. Perecman, Ed. (Institute for Research on Behavioral Neuroscience Press, New York, 1987), pp. 141-158.
18. M. Petrides, Neuropsychologia 23, 601 (1985).
19. G. S. Berns, J. D. Cohen, M. A. Mintun, Science 276, 1272 (1997).
20. K. J. Friston, C. D. Frith, P. F. Liddle, R. S. J. Frackowiak, J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 13, 5 (1993).
21. A. R. McIntosh, F. L. Bookstein, J. V. Haxby, C. L. Grady, Neuroimage 3, 143 (1996); A. R. McIntosh, L. Nyberg, F. Bookstein, E. Tulving, Hum. Brain Mapp. 5, 323 (1997).
22. A. R. McIntosh, F. L. Bookstein, J. V. Haxby, C. L. Grady, Neuroimage 3, 143 (1996); A. R. McIntosh, L. Nyberg, F. Bookstein, E. Tulving, Hum. Brain Mapp. 5, 323 (1997).
23. Covariances of the LPFC voxel with the rest of the image voxels were computed within each of the six tone scans, across subjects and between groups. Singular value decomposition of these covariance maps produces latent variables containing scan profiles and "singular" images. The scan profiles index changes in the covariances of LPFC with the regions identified in the singular image across scans and between groups. Brain-behavior relations were examined separately in the two groups. This analysis was identical to the analysis above, except that RT differences between Tone+/Target and Tone-/Target trials in each block were used to generate covariance images. Scan profiles index the changes in covariances of behavior with the singular image. The significance of the scan profiles within and between groups and the voxel contributions to the singular image was assessed using bootstrapping (P < 0.01) [A. R. Braun et al., Science 279, 91 (1998); A. R. McIntosh and F. Gonzalez-Lima, J. Neurophysiol. 80, 3148 (1998)].
24. Covariances of the LPFC voxel with the rest of the image voxels were computed within each of the six tone scans, across subjects and between groups. Singular value decomposition of these covariance maps produces latent variables containing scan profiles and "singular" images. The scan profiles index changes in the covariances of LPFC with the regions identified in the singular image across scans and between groups. Brain-behavior relations were examined separately in the two groups. This analysis was identical to the analysis above, except that RT differences between Tone+/Target and Tone-/Target trials in each block were used to generate covariance images. Scan profiles index the changes in covariances of behavior with the singular image. The significance of the scan profiles within and between groups and the voxel contributions to the singular image was assessed using bootstrapping (P < 0.01) [A. R. Braun et al., Science 279, 91 (1998); A. R. McIntosh and F. Gonzalez-Lima, J. Neurophysiol. 80, 3148 (1998)].
25. The correlation between the singular images from the LPFC-brain PLS and the brain-behavior PLS analyses was 0.68, and the 95% confidence interval extended from 0.10 to 0.85.
26. C. Büchel, J. T. Coull, and K. J. Friston [Science 283, 1538 (1999)] noted an increase in neural interactions and decreased activity with learning among cortical visual areas.
27. Analysis of direct and indirect effects among the regions would be required to address this question (for example, effective connectivity [K. J. Friston, C. D. Frith, R. Fracowiak, Hum. Brain Mapp. 1, 69 (1993)]). Structural equation modeling [A. R. McIntosh et al., J. Neurosci. 14, 655 (1994)] of the connections of LPFC with auditory and visual cortices in AWARE subjects indicated strong influences of LPFC early in acquisition to the Tone+. By the end of training, effects on Tone-trials were stronger than on Tone+ trials. UNAWARE subjects showed no systematic relations. Sample size prohibits a full examination of these relations, so we regard them as tentative.
28. Analysis of direct and indirect effects among the regions would be required to address this question (for example, effective connectivity [K. J. Friston, C. D. Frith, R. Fracowiak, Hum. Brain Mapp. 1, 69 (1993)]). Structural equation modeling [A. R. McIntosh et al., J. Neurosci. 14, 655 (1994)] of the connections of LPFC with auditory and visual cortices in AWARE subjects indicated strong influences of LPFC early in acquisition to the Tone+. By the end of training, effects on Tone-trials were stronger than on Tone+ trials. UNAWARE subjects showed no systematic relations. Sample size prohibits a full examination of these relations, so we regard them as tentative.
29. S. E. Molchan, T. Sunderland, A. R. McIntosh, P. Herscovitch, B. G. Schreurs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 8122 (1994); J. S. Morris, K. J. Friston, R. J. Dolan, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265, 649 (1998); M. E. Raichle et al., Cereb. Cortex 4, 8 (1994); K. Sakai et al., J. Neurosci. 18, 1827 (1998).
30. S. E. Molchan, T. Sunderland, A. R. McIntosh, P. Herscovitch, B. G. Schreurs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 8122 (1994); J. S. Morris, K. J. Friston, R. J. Dolan, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265, 649 (1998); M. E. Raichle et al., Cereb. Cortex 4, 8 (1994); K. Sakai et al., J. Neurosci. 18, 1827 (1998).
31. S. E. Molchan, T. Sunderland, A. R. McIntosh, P. Herscovitch, B. G. Schreurs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 8122 (1994); J. S. Morris, K. J. Friston, R. J. Dolan, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265, 649 (1998); M. E. Raichle et al., Cereb. Cortex 4, 8 (1994); K. Sakai et al., J. Neurosci. 18, 1827 (1998).
32. S. E. Molchan, T. Sunderland, A. R. McIntosh, P. Herscovitch, B. G. Schreurs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 8122 (1994); J. S. Morris, K. J. Friston, R. J. Dolan, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265, 649 (1998); M. E. Raichle et al., Cereb. Cortex 4, 8 (1994); K. Sakai et al., J. Neurosci. 18, 1827 (1998).
33. M. Petrides, B. Alivisatos, A. C. Evans, E. Meyer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 873 (1993).
34. K. J. Friston, Neuroimage 5, 213 (1997); A. R. McIntosh, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 855, 556 (1998).
35. K. J. Friston, Neuroimage 5, 213 (1997); A. R. McIntosh, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 855, 556 (1998).
36. We thank the staff of the PET Centre at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, for their valuable assistance, and E. Tulving, T. W. Picton, and M. J. Taylor for comments on the manuscript. Supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada grant OGP017034 and Medical Research Council of Canada grant MT-13623 to A.R.M.