4.7 Article

Action selection: A race model for selected and non-selected actions distinguishes the contribution of premotor and prefrontal areas

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 888-896

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.045

关键词

Response selection; Prefrontal; Cingulate; Race model; Decision making; fMRI

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [077029]
  2. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105597119, MC_U105579212] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MC_U105597119, MC_U105579212] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Race models have been used to explain perceptual, motor and oculomotor decisions. Here we developed a race model to explain how human subjects select actions when there are no overt rewards and no external cues to specify which action to make. Critically, we were able to estimate the cumulative activity of neuronal decision-units for selected and non-selected actions. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test for regional brain activity that correlated with the predictions of this race model. Activity in the pre-SMA, cingulate motor and premotor areas correlated with prospective selection between responses according to the race model. Activity in the lateral prefrontal cortex did not correlate with the race model, even though this area was active during action selection. This activity related to the degree to which individuals switched between alternative actions. Crucially, a follow-up experiment showed that it was not present on the first trial. Taken together, these results suggest that the lateral prefrontal cortex is not the source for the generation of action. It is more likely that it is involved in switching to alternatives or monitoring previous actions. Thus, our experiment shows the power of the race model in distinguishing the contribution of different areas in the selection of action. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据