Cited by 415Cognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

The role of the rostral frontal cortex (area 10) in prospective memory: a lateral versus medial dissociation

Burgess, Paul W, Scott, Sophie K, Frith, Christopher D·2003·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

Using the H(2)(15)O PET method, we investigated whether previous findings of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) changes in the polar and superior rostral aspects of the frontal lobes (principally Brodmann's area (BA) 10) during prospective memory (PM) paradigms (i.e. those involving carrying out an intended action after a delay) can be attributed merely to the greater difficulty of such tasks over the baseline conditions typically employed. Three different tasks were administered under four conditions: baseline simple RT; attention-demanding ongoing task only; ongoing task plus a delayed intention (unpracticed); ongoing task plus delayed intention (practiced). Under prospective memory conditions, we found significant rCBF decreases in the superior medial aspects of the rostral prefrontal cortex (BA 10) relative to the baseline or ongoing task only conditions. However more lateral aspects of area 10 (plus the medio-dorsal thalamus) showed the opposite pattern, with rCBF increases in the prospective memory conditions relative to the other conditions. These patterns were broadly replicated over all three tasks. Since both the medial and lateral rostral regions showed: (a) instances where rCBF was lower during a more effortful condition (as estimated by increased RTs and error rates) than in a less effortful one; and (b) there was no correlation between rCBF and RT durations or number of errors in these regions, a simple task difficulty explanation of the rCBF changes in the ros…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00327-5

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burgess, P. W., Scott, S. K., & Frith, C. D.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Paul W
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
41
Issue
8
Pages
906-918
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136700383
Cited by
415
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 23
FWCI
18.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (090961)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
prospective memory, rostral prefrontal cortex, Brodmann area 10, medial prefrontal cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, regional cerebral blood flow, task difficulty
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Dissociative Disorders, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Memory, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Radiography, Reaction Time, Regional Blood Flow, Semantics, Tomography, Emission-Computed, 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