Inhibition processes are dissociable and lateralized in human prefrontal cortex
Inhibition processes are dissociable and lateralized in human prefrontal cortex
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.09.018
复制
发表时间：
2016-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Bozzali, Marco
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cipolotti, Lisa;Spano, Barbara;Bozzali, Marco
前额叶皮层（PFC）是已知的执行功能的基本贡献。然而，这些贡献的确切性质并不完全清楚。我们关注的是一种特殊的执行功能，抑制，即抑制一种潜在反应的能力。功能成像和动物研究已经研究了抑制。然而，只有少数病变研究，通常报告不一致的结果。首次，我们进行了认知和神经影像学调查的患者与局灶性单侧PFC病变在两个广泛使用的抑制性任务，需要一个口头的反应：海灵第2部分和Stroop颜色词测试。本研究采用基于体素的病变症状图（VLSM），系统地探讨了抑制、液体智力与病变部位的关系。我们发现，PFC患者与健康对照组（TIC）相比，显着受损的抑制措施的Hayling和Stroop，即使在流体智力测试的性能是共变的。一旦流体智力被部分排除，患者在每一个Hayling抑制测量和Stroop上的表现之间没有显著的关系，这表明这两个测试可能涉及不同类型的抑制。在解释了流体智力之后，我们发现了测试之间的显着相互作用，Hayling或Stroop，以及PFC损伤的左侧或右侧。这一发现表明偏侧化的功能组织是补充和扩展我们的VLSM结果。我们发现，两个Hayling抑制措施的性能显着依赖于一个类似的和相对有限的区域内的右侧PFC的完整性，在右侧上级和额中回。与此形成鲜明对比的是，Stroop的表现依赖于左侧上级和额中回的完整性。因此，病变的位置，右或左PFC，是关键的两个抑制性任务的负载类似的言语控制产生障碍。这表明，这两个抑制措施的海灵和Stroop可能会评估分离组件的执行功能，有关解剖定义和偏侧PFC电路。我们的研究结果还表明，抑制实际上可能包括不同的神经底物的性质不同的形式。这对诊断和治疗去抑制障碍（PFC病变引起的常见行为问题）具有临床意义。我们的研究结果强调需要使用各种任务来评估抑制，并开发不同类型的治疗方法。
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is known to make fundamental contributions to executive functions. However, the precise nature of these contributions is incompletely understood. We focused on a specific executive function, inhibition, the ability to suppress a pre-potent response. Functional imaging and animal studies have studied inhibition. However, there are only few lesion studies, typically reporting discrepant findings. For the first time, we conducted cognitive and neuroimaging investigations on patients with focal unilateral PFC lesions across two widely used inhibitory tasks requiring a verbal response: The Hayling Part 2 and Stroop Colour-Word Tests. We systematically explored the relationship between inhibition, fluid intelligence and lesion location using voxel-based lesion symptom mapping (VLSM). We found that PFC patients were significantly impaired compared with healthy comparison group (TIC) on both suppression measures of the Hayling and on the Stroop, even when performance on a fluid intelligence test was covaried. No significant relationship was found between patients' performance on each Hayling suppression measure and the Stroop, once fluid intelligence was partialled out, suggesting that the two tests may involve different kinds of inhibition. After accounting for fluid intelligence, we found a significant interaction between tests, Hayling or Stroop, and site, left or right, of PFC damage. This finding suggesting lateralized functional organization was complemented and extended by our VLSM results. We found that performance on both Hayling suppression measures significantly relied on the integrity of a similar and relatively circumscribed region within the right lateral PFC, in the right lateral superior and middle frontal gyri. In stark contrast, performance on the Stroop relies on the integrity of left lateral superior and middle frontal gyri. Thus, lesion location, right or left PFC, is critical in producing impairments on two inhibitory tasks loading similarly on verbal control. This suggests that the two suppression measures of the Hayling and the Stroop are likely to assess dissociable components of executive functions, related to anatomically defined and lateralized PFC circuits. Our findings also suggest that inhibition may actually comprise qualitatively different forms with different neural substrates. This has clinical implications for the diagnosis and treatment of disinhibition impairments, a common behavioural problem caused by PFC lesions. Our results highlight the need to assess inhibition using a variety of tasks and to develop different types of treatments.