Right inferior frontal cortex: addressing the rebuttals
Activation decreases with practice (Kelly and Garavan, 2005) although within-session practice effects specifically for response inhibition paradigms have not, to our knowledge, been reported. (d) Why is rIFC recruitment sustained even when subjects must always produce a “go” response and proactive i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Frontiers in human neuroscience 2014-11, Vol.8, p.905-905 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Activation decreases with practice (Kelly and Garavan, 2005) although within-session practice effects specifically for response inhibition paradigms have not, to our knowledge, been reported. (d) Why is rIFC recruitment sustained even when subjects must always produce a “go” response and proactive inhibitory control is unnecessary? [...]note: (i) our frontal effect occurred relative to a control site, using two brief pulses of DES (not the 60 Hz method, nor the “short train” method of 5 pulses, with 3 ms interpulse interval, Axelson et al., 2009) (ii) it was context-specific—slowing only those subjects who were not already slowing, (iii) it more strongly affected trials on which braking was needed, and (iv) DES like ours can have highly specific effects (Desmurget et al., 2013). [...]the EF study was not focused on the crucial posterior ventral rIFC region. [...]EF's view that rIFC and its networks implement a “general class of attentional and working memory maintenance processes” does not provide easily testable hypotheses and fails to specify how this processing is converted into action. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1662-5161 1662-5161 |
DOI: | 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00905 |