The Functional Organization of Auditory Working Memory as Revealed by fMRI
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Reasoning, Models, and Images: Behavioral Measures and Cortical Activity
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Signal Strength Determines the Nature of the Relationship Between Perception and Working Memory
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Neural Mechanisms of Visual Attention: Object-Based Selection of a Region in Space
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Order Information in Working Memory: fMRI Evidence for Parietal and Prefrontal Mechanisms
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Imaging Cognition II: An Empirical Review of 275 PET and fMRI Studies
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Age Differences in the Frontal Lateralization of Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Revealed by PET
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Functional Anatomy of High-Resolution Visual Mental Imagery
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
''What''—Then—''Where'' in Visual Working Memory: An Event-Related fMRI Study
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
The search for the phonological store: From loop to convolution
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
A neuromorphic model of spatial lookahead planning
Neural Networks
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Hi-index | 0.00 |
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.