CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Atypical recruitment of medial prefrontal cortex in autism spectrum disorders: An fMRI study of two executive function tasks

Open access
Gilbert, Sam J., Bird, Geoffrey, Brindley, Rachel, Frith, Christopher D., Burgess, Paul W.·2008·Neuropsychologia
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.025PMC PMC2648877
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested an uneven profile of executive dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). For example, some authors have reported deficits on newly developed tests of executive function sensitive to rostral prefrontal function, despite spared, or even superior, performance on other tests. We investigated the performance of a group of high-functioning participants with ASD (N=15) and an age- and IQ-matched control group (N=18) on two executive function tests, whilst undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Behaviourally, there were no significant differences between the two groups. In a classical test of executive function (random response generation), BOLD signal differed between the groups in the cerebellum but not in the frontal lobes. However, on a new test of executive function (selection between stimulus-oriented and stimulus-independent thought), the ASD group exhibited significantly greater signal-change in medial rostral prefrontal cortex (especially Brodmann Area 10) in the comparison of stimulus-oriented versus stimulus-independent attention. In addition, the new test (but not the classical test) provided evidence for abnormal functional organisation of medial prefrontal cortex in ASD. These results underline the heterogeneity of different tests of executive function, and suggest that executive functioning in ASD is associated with task-specific functional change.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.025

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Behavioural data from the random generation task, presented separately for Slow and Fast blocks. Graphs indicate the percentage of responses of each of the four types, depending on the previous response. Horizontal lines indicate the expected percentage of responses in a truly random sequence. Error bars indicate standard errors.
Fig. 1 Behavioural data from the random generation task, presented separately for Slow and Fast blocks. Graphs indicate the percentage of responses of each of the four types, depending on the previous response. Horizontal lines indicate the expected percentage of responses in a truly random sequence. Error bars indicate standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Behavioural data from the alphabet task. Left graph shows mean response time (RT) and right graph shows mean error rate, in each of four conditions depending on whether the phase was stimulus-oriented (SO) or stimulus-independent (SI), and whether the trial-type was switch (i.e. different phase to the previous trial: Sw) or non-switch (NS). Error bars indicate standard errors.
Fig. 2 Behavioural data from the alphabet task. Left graph shows mean response time (RT) and right graph shows mean error rate, in each of four conditions depending on whether the phase was stimulus-oriented (SO) or stimulus-independent (SI), and whether the trial-type was switch (i.e. different phase to the previous trial: Sw) or non-switch (NS). Error bars indicate standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Signal change associated with the comparisons between Random and Baseline conditions, presented separately for the Control and ASD groups. Areas of activation in the contrasts of Baseline > Random are presented on sagittal slices (x = 2) of the relevant group of participants’ mean normalized structural scan.
Fig. 3 Signal change associated with the comparisons between Random and Baseline conditions, presented separately for the Control and ASD groups. Areas of activation in the contrasts of Baseline > Random are presented on sagittal slices (x = 2) of the relevant group of participants’ mean normalized structural scan.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Regions showing significantly greater activation related to the contrast of Baseline > Random in the control than the ASD group. Results are plotted on a sagittal slice (x = −24) of the participants’ mean normalized structural scan.
Fig. 4 Regions showing significantly greater activation related to the contrast of Baseline > Random in the control than the ASD group. Results are plotted on a sagittal slice (x = −24) of the participants’ mean normalized structural scan.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Signal change associated with the comparisons between stimulus-oriented (SO) and stimulus-independent (SI) conditions, presented separately for the Control and ASD groups. Areas of activation in the contrasts of SO > SI are presented on sagittal slices (x = −12) of the relevant group of participants’ mean normalized structural scan.
Fig. 5 Signal change associated with the comparisons between stimulus-oriented (SO) and stimulus-independent (SI) conditions, presented separately for the Control and ASD groups. Areas of activation in the contrasts of SO > SI are presented on sagittal slices (x = −12) of the relevant group of participants’ mean normalized structural scan.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 (Top) Regions showing significantly greater activation related to the contrast of SO > SI in the ASD than the control group. (Bottom) Regions showing activation in the contrast of SO > SI when the two groups are pooled. Results are plotted on a sagittal slice of the participants’ mean normalized structural scan (top: x = 0, bottom: x = 2, so that each slice displays the relevant peak voxel). Mean contrast estimates are plotted at the peak BA 10 voxel for each contrast (top: 0, 48, 2; bottom: 2, 64, 28) separately for the ASD and control groups. Error bars indicate standard errors.
Fig. 6 (Top) Regions showing significantly greater activation related to the contrast of SO > SI in the ASD than the control group. (Bottom) Regions showing activation in the contrast of SO > SI when the two groups are pooled. Results are plotted on a sagittal slice of the participants’ mean normalized structural scan (top: x = 0, bottom: x = 2, so that each slice displays the relevant peak voxel). Mean contrast estimates are plotted at the peak BA 10 voxel for each contrast (top: 0, 48, 2; bottom: 2, 64, 28) separately for the ASD and control groups. Error bars indicate standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 86 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–158 of 158

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, S. J., Bird, G., Brindley, R., Frith, C. D., & Burgess, P. W.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Gilbert, Sam J.
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
46
Issue
9
Pages
2281-2291
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.025
PMC
PMC2648877
OpenAlex
W2101777433
Cited by
158
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (061171)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, executive function, medial prefrontal cortex, Brodmann area 10, cerebellum, high-functioning autism
MeSH terms
Adult, Autistic Disorder, Brain, Cognition, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Processes, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Parietal Lobe, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Recruitment, Neurophysiological, Task Performance and Analysis, Prefrontal Cortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review