CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Behavioral consequences of selective damage to frontal pole and posterior cingulate cortices

Open access
Mansouri, Farshad A., Buckley, Mark J., Mahboubi, Majid, Tanaka, Keiji·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1422629112PMC PMC4517212
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: Frontal pole cortex (FPC) refers to the most anterior part of prefrontal cortex, a region that is highly developed in anthropoid primates. However, because of technical difficulties in studying this area, its role in primate cognition had remained largely unknown. We studied effects of selective bilateral lesions within FPC on monkeys’ cognitive flexibility. FPC lesion did not impair the performance in well-learned cognitively demanding tasks. However, FPC-lesioned monkeys remained more focused than control monkeys in exploiting the current task when they faced newly introduced interruptions by a simple secondary task or free rewards. This unique pattern of behavioral changes in FPC-lesioned monkeys suggests that FPC is involved in redistribution of cognitive resources from the current task to novel opportunities.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1422629112

Cites

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?

  • Removal of the supracallosal parts of areas 29, 30 and 23 had no apparent effect on a computerised version of the WCST.

    “In one of the very few such studies, removal of the supracallosal parts of areas 29, 30 and 23 (Mansouri et al., 2015) had no apparent effect on a computerised version of the WCST”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Mansouri et al., 2015

    The WCST results and Discussion report that posterior-cingulate-lesioned monkeys were unimpaired on the computerized WCST analog. The Results describe lesions of the posterior cingulate cortex extending into area 31, with only some damage to the anterior portions of areas 29 and 30; they do not establish removal of the specified supracallosal parts of areas 29, 30, and 23. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 71 · Cited by 105

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. [20]Wendelken C, Bunge SA (2010) Transitive inference: Distinct contributions of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. J Cogn Neurosci 22(5):837 -847.
  2. [21]Volle E, Gilbert SJ, Benoit RG, Burgess PW (2010) Specialization of the rostral prefrontal cortex for distinct analogy processes. Cereb Cortex 20(11):2647 -2659.
  3. [22]Pearson JM, Heilbronner SR, Barack DL, Hayden BY, Platt ML (2011) Posterior cingulate cortex: Adapting behavior to a changing world. Trends Cogn Sci 15(4):143 -151.
  4. [23]Dumontheil I, Gilbert SJ, Frith CD, Burgess PW (2010) Recruitment of lateral rostral prefrontal cortex in spontaneous and task-related thoughts. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 63(9):1740 -1756.
  5. [26]Petrides M, Pandya DN (2007) Efferent association pathways from the rostral prefrontal cortex in the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 27(43):11573 -11586.
  6. [27]Semendeferi K, Armstrong E, Schleicher A, Zilles K, Van Hoesen GW (2001) Prefrontal cortex in humans and apes: A comparative study of area 10. Am J Phys Anthropol 114(3):224 -241.
  7. [28]Burman KJ, et al. (2011) Subcortical projections to the frontal pole in the marmoset monkey. Eur J Neurosci 34(2):303 -319.
  8. [29]Burman KJ, Reser DH, Yu HH, Rosa MG (2011) Cortical input to the frontal pole of the marmoset monkey. Cereb Cortex 21(8):1712 -1737.
  9. [30]Small DM, et al. (2003) The posterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex mediate the anticipatory allocation of spatial attention. Neuroimage 18(3):633 -641.
  10. [31]McCoy AN, Platt ML (2005) Risk-sensitive neurons in macaque posterior cingulate cortex. Nat Neurosci 8(9):1220 -1227.
  11. [32]Kobayashi Y, Amaral DG (2000) Macaque monkey retrosplenial cortex: I. Threedimensional and cytoarchitectonic organization. J Comp Neurol 426(3):339 -365.
  12. [34]Vogt BA, Vogt L, Farber NB, Bush G (2005) Architecture and neurocytology of monkey cingulate gyrus. J Comp Neurol 485(3):218 -239.
  13. [35]Kable JW, Glimcher PW (2007) The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat Neurosci 10(12):1625 -1633.
  14. [36]Hayden BY, Nair AC, McCoy AN, Platt ML (2008) Posterior cingulate cortex mediates outcome-contingent allocation of behavior. Neuron 60(1):19 -25.
  15. [37]Heilbronner SR, Hayden BY, Platt ML (2011) Decision salience signals in posterior cingulate cortex. Front Neurosci 5(2011):55.
  16. [38]Pearson JM, Hayden BY, Raghavachari S, Platt ML (2009) Neurons in posterior cingulate cortex signal exploratory decisions in a dynamic multioption choice task. Curr Biol 19(18):1532 -1537.
  17. [40]Anderson SW, Damasio H, Jones RD, Tranel D (1991) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance as a measure of frontal lobe damage. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 13(6):909 -922.
  18. [41]Stuss DT, et al. (2000) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: Effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia 38(4):388 -402.
  19. [43]Mansouri FA, Buckley MJ, Tanaka K (2007) Mnemonic function of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in conflict-induced behavioral adjustment. Science 318(5852): 987 -990.
  20. [44]Mansouri FA, Buckley MJ, Tanaka K (2014) The essential role of primate orbitofrontal cortex in conflict-induced executive control adjustment. J Neurosci 34(33):11016 -11031.
  21. [45]Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carter CS, Cohen JD (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev 108(3):624 -652.
  22. [46]Egner T (2007) Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 7(4):380 -390.
  23. [47]Kerns JG, et al. (2004) Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science 303(5660):1023 -1026.
  24. [48]Kuwabara M, Mansouri FA, Buckley MJ, Tanaka K (2014) Cognitive control functions of anterior cingulate cortex in macaque monkeys performing a Wisconsin Card Sorting Test analog. J Neurosci 34(22):7531 -7547.
  25. [52]Boschin EA, Piekema C, Buckley MJ (2015) Essential functions of primate frontopolar cortex in cognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(9):E1020 -E1027.
  26. [54]Morecraft RJ, Van Hoesen GW (1993) Frontal granular cortex input to the cingulate (M3), supplementary (M2) and primary (M1) motor cortices in the rhesus monkey. J Comp Neurol 337(4):669 -689.
  27. [55]Morecraft RJ, Cipolloni PB, Stilwell-Morecraft KS, Gedney MT, Pandya DN (2004) Cytoarchitecture and cortical connections of the posterior cingulate and adjacent somatosensory fields in the rhesus monkey. J Comp Neurol 469(1):37 -69.
  28. [56]Rilling JK, et al. (2007) A comparison of resting-state brain activity in humans and chimpanzees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(43):17146 -17151.
  29. [57]Watanabe M (2011) Are there internal thought processes in the monkey? -default brain activity in humans and nonhuman primates. Behav Brain Res 221(1):295 -303.
  30. [58]Ongür D, Ferry AT, Price JL (2003) Architectonic subdivision of the human orbital and medial prefrontal cortex. J Comp Neurol 460(3):425 -449.
  31. [60]Jacobs B, et al. (2001) Regional dendritic and spine variation in human cerebral cortex: A quantitative golgi study. Cereb Cortex 11(6):558 -571.
  32. [61]Mayr U, Awh E, Laurey P (2003) Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nat Neurosci 6(5):450 -452.
  33. [62]Vincent JL, et al. (2007) Intrinsic functional architecture in the anaesthetized monkey brain. Nature 447(7140):83 -86.
  34. [64]Mantini D, et al. (2011) Default mode of brain function in monkeys. J Neurosci 31(36): 12954 -12962.
  35. [65]Kojima T, et al. (2009) Default mode of brain activity demonstrated by positron emission tomography imaging in awake monkeys: Higher rest-related than working memory-related activity in medial cortical areas. J Neurosci 29(46):14463 -14471.
  36. [66]Grillon C, Courchesne E, Ameli R, Geyer MA, Braff DL (1990) Increased distractibility in schizophrenic patients. Electrophysiologic and behavioral evidence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 47(2):171 -179.
  37. [67]Luck SJ, Gold JM (2008) The construct of attention in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 64(1):34 -39.
  38. [68]Barbalat G, Chambon V, Franck N, Koechlin E, Farrer C (2009) Organization of cognitive control within the lateral prefrontal cortex in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 66(4):377 -386.
  39. [69]den Braber A, et al. (2010) Brain activation during cognitive planning in twins discordant or concordant for obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Brain 133(10):3123 -3140.

Authors
Mansouri, F. A., Buckley, M. J., Mahboubi, M., & Tanaka, K.
Affiliations
  • RIKEN Center for Brain Science (JP)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-07-06
Volume
112
Issue
29
Pages
E3940-9
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1422629112
PMC
PMC4517212
OpenAlex
W1493563963
Cited by
105
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
FWCI
5.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (101092/Z/13/Z)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K005480/1)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (26250011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
posterior cingulate cortex, primate behavior, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, rule switching, cognitive control, conflict, distractor interference, executive function, goal-directed behavior, prefrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Haplorhini, Behavior, Animal, Cognition, Frontal Lobe, Gyrus Cinguli, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Biological, Task Performance and Analysis

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