Spatial versus Object Working Memory: PET Investigations - PubMed (original) (raw)
Spatial versus Object Working Memory: PET Investigations
E E Smith et al. J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Summer.
Abstract
We used positron emission tomography (PET) to answer the following question: Is working memory a unitary storage system, or does it instead include different storage buffers for different kinds of information? In Experiment 1, PET measures were taken while subjects engaged in either a spatial-memory task (retain the position of three dots for 3 sec) or an object-memory task (retain the identity of two objects for 3 sec). The results manifested a striking double dissociation, as the spatial task activated only right-hemisphere regions, whereas the object task activated primarily left-hemisphere regions. The spatial (right-hemisphere) regions included occipital, parietal, and prefrontal areas, while the object (left-hemisphere) regions included inferotemporal and parietal areas. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the stimuli and trial events were identical for the spatial and object tasks; whether spatial or object memory was required was manipulated by instructions. The PET results once more showed a double dissociation, as the spatial task activated primarily right-hemisphere regions (again including occipital, parietal and prefrontal areas), whereas the object task activated only left-hemisphere regions (again including inferotemporal and parietal areas). Experiment 3 was a strictly behavioral study, which produced another double dissociation. It used the same tasks as Experiment 2, and showed that a variation in spatial similarity affected performance in the spatial but not the object task, whereas a variation in shape similarity affected performance in the object but not the spatial task. Taken together, the results of the three experiments clearly imply that different working-memory buffers are used for storing spatial and object information.
Similar articles
- Dissociating verbal and spatial working memory using PET.
Smith EE, Jonides J, Koeppe RA. Smith EE, et al. Cereb Cortex. 1996 Jan-Feb;6(1):11-20. doi: 10.1093/cercor/6.1.11. Cereb Cortex. 1996. PMID: 8670634 - Dissociations in the processing of "what" and "where" information in working memory: an event-related potential analysis.
Mecklinger A, Müller N. Mecklinger A, et al. J Cogn Neurosci. 1996 Sep;8(5):453-73. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.5.453. J Cogn Neurosci. 1996. PMID: 23961947 - Visuomotor transformations for reaching to memorized targets: a PET study.
Lacquaniti F, Perani D, Guigon E, Bettinardi V, Carrozzo M, Grassi F, Rossetti Y, Fazio F. Lacquaniti F, et al. Neuroimage. 1997 Feb;5(2):129-46. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1996.0254. Neuroimage. 1997. PMID: 9345543 Clinical Trial. - Working memory: a view from neuroimaging.
Smith EE, Jonides J. Smith EE, et al. Cogn Psychol. 1997 Jun;33(1):5-42. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1997.0658. Cogn Psychol. 1997. PMID: 9212720 Review. - The role of prefrontal cortex in working memory: examining the contents of consciousness.
Courtney SM, Petit L, Haxby JV, Ungerleider LG. Courtney SM, et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Nov 29;353(1377):1819-28. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0334. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998. PMID: 9854254 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Encoded and updated spatial working memories share a common representational format in alpha activity.
Günseli E, Foster JJ, Sutterer DW, Todorova L, Vogel EK, Awh E. Günseli E, et al. iScience. 2024 Jan 17;27(2):108963. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.108963. eCollection 2024 Feb 16. iScience. 2024. PMID: 38333713 Free PMC article. - The prefrontal cortex: from monkey to man.
Levy R. Levy R. Brain. 2024 Mar 1;147(3):794-815. doi: 10.1093/brain/awad389. Brain. 2024. PMID: 37972282 Free PMC article. Review. - Effects of item distinctiveness on the retrieval of objects and object-location bindings from visual working memory.
Markov YA, Utochkin IS. Markov YA, et al. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Oct;84(7):2236-2254. doi: 10.3758/s13414-022-02451-0. Epub 2022 Feb 23. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022. PMID: 35199322 - Target familiarity and visual working memory do not influence familiarity effect in visual search.
Guo Z, Niu M, Wang Q. Guo Z, et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 7;11(1):7560. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86669-2. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 33828108 Free PMC article. - Between-person variation in naturally occurring affect does not relate to working memory performance: a latent variable modelling study.
Chung A, Busseri MA, Arnell KM. Chung A, et al. Psychol Res. 2021 Jul;85(5):1866-1884. doi: 10.1007/s00426-020-01387-0. Epub 2021 Jan 2. Psychol Res. 2021. PMID: 33387021
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources