Actions for The Cognitive Control of Memory and Motor Responses:an Examination of the Neural Correlates of Active Inhibition

Email RIS file
Bookmark
Report an Issue

The Cognitive Control of Memory and Motor Responses:an Examination of the Neural Correlates of Active Inhibition

Author
Rizio, Avery
Published
[University Park, Pennsylvania] : Pennsylvania State University, 2014.
Physical Description
1 electronic document
Additional Creators
Dennis, Nancy A.
Access Online

Availability

I Want It
I Want It

Finding items...

Graduate Program
Restrictions on Access
Open Access.
Summary
Active inhibition includes both response inhibition (the suppression of prepotent motor response) and memory inhibition (the suppression of either encoding or retrieval). While the majority of behavioral research has considered them to be a single process, neuroimaging research suggests otherwise. Despite conflicting findings, there have been no attempts to investigate the degree to which active inhibition might be mediated by two separate networks. The current study directly compared the neural networks that mediate both response and memory inhibition through the use of fMRI and connectivity analyses. Direct comparisons within and between types of inhibition focused on differences in the neural network supporting each type of inhibitory process. Specifically, retrieval inhibition relied primarily on activation of the parietal lobes, compared to encoding inhibition, which relied on activation of the superior and middle prefrontal gyrus. These results indicate that the forgetting of information through suppression of retrieval processes can be accomplished through the diversion of attentional processes, while forgetting through the stopping of encoding relies on active inhibition. With respect to response inhibition, stopping recruited greater activation of the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) than did response withholding, which was mediated by activation of the middle and superior frontal gyrus (SFG). Thus, while it appears that the IFG supports direct inhibition, rather than attentional control, it may only do so when a strongly prepotent response must be inhibited. Comparisons between types of inhibition revealed that response inhibition recruits increased activation in the middle and IFG, while memory inhibition recruits increased activation of the SFG. Thus, in addition to finding evidence that separate regions of the brain support these types of inhibition, these prefrontal differences also provide evidence that it is more difficult to recruit inhibitory mechanisms in support of memory inhibition than response inhibition. Finally, resting state connectivity analyses reveal that the left IFG, which supports response inhibition, exhibits greater intrinsic connectivity with the motor cortex, while the right SFG, which supports memory inhibition, exhibits greater connectivity with regions responsible for encoding and retrieval (i.e. medial temporal lobe). Taken together, these results provide evidence for separate memory and response inhibition processes, the former supported by the SFG and the latter supported by the IFG.
Other Subject(s)
Dissertation Note
Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University 2014.
Reproduction Note
Microfilm (positive). 1 reel 35 mm. (University Microfilms 10-390594)
Technical Details
The full text of the dissertation is available as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file ; Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view the file.
View MARC record | catkey: 14158787