Cited by 327Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Working memory for complex figures: An fMRI comparison of letter and fractal n-back tasks

Open access
Ragland, J. Daniel, Turetsky, Bruce I., Gur, Ruben C., Gunning-Dixon, Faith, Turner, Travis, Schroeder, Lee, Chan, Robin, Gur, Raquel E.·2002·Neuropsychology

Abstract

n-back letter and fractal tasks were administered to 11 participants during functional magnetic resonance imaging to test process specificity theories of prefrontal cortex (PFC) function and assess task validity. Tasks were matched on accuracy, but fractal n-back responses were slower and more conservative. Maintenance (1-back minus 0-back) activated inferior parietal and dorsolateral PFC, with additional activation in right ventrolateral PFC during letter n-back and left lingual gyrus during fractal n-back. Maintenance plus manipulation (2-back minus 0-back) activated inferior parietal, Broca's area, insula, and dorsolateral and ventral PFC, with greater right dorsolateral PFC activation for letter n-back. Manipulation only (2-back minus 1-back) produced additional and equivalent dorsolateral PFC and anterior cingulate activation in both tasks. Results support fractal n-back validity and indicate substantial overlap in working memory functions of dorsal and ventral PFC.

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 · 10.1037/0894-4105.16.3.370

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Alsop DC. Correction of ghost artifacts and distortion in echoplanar MR imaging with an iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology. 1995;197:388. [Google Scholar]
  2. Awh E, Jonides J, Smith EE, Schumacher EH, Koeppe RA, Katz S. Dissociation of storage and rehearsal in verbal working memory: Evidence from PET. Psychological Science. 1996;7:25–31. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley AD. Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chute DL, Westall RF. PowerLaboratory. Devon, PA: MacLaboratory; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. D’Esposito M, Detre JA, Alsop DC, Shin RK, Atlas S, Grossman M. Functional MRI studies of spatial and nonspatial working memory. Cognitive Brain Research. 1995;7:1–13. doi: 10.1016/s0926-6410(98)00004-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. MEDx software (Version 3.3) [Computer software] Sterling, VA: Sensor Systems, Inc; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT Software (Version 6.12) [Computer software] Cary, NC: Author; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  8. Woods RP, Mazziota JC, Cherry SR. Automated image registration. In: Uemura K, editor. Quantification of brain function: Tracer kinetics and image analysis in brain PET. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1993. pp. 391–398. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ragland, J. D., Turetsky, B. I., Gur, R. C., Gunning-Dixon, F., Turner, T., Schroeder, L., Chan, R., & Gur, R. E.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Neuropsychology
Published
2002
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
370-379
ISSN
  • 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1559
OpenAlex
W2087599214
Cited by
327
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30mh048539-05, 2k02mh000586-06)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 00586, MH19112, MH 43880, MH-48539, R01MH062103, T32MH019112)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR0040, M01RR000040)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
working memory, prefrontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, task validity, inferior parietal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, Broca's area, insula
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Parietal Lobe, Random Allocation, Reaction Time, 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