Cited by 361Memory Processes and InfluencesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Functions and Memory

Differential activation of the prefrontal cortex in successful and unsuccessful memory retrieval

Open access
Rugg, M. D., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, C. D., Frackowiak, R. S. J., Dolan, R. J.·1996·Brain

Abstract

Six subjects underwent PET scans while they performed three versions of a recognition memory test for words and three versions of a control task. In each memory condition, the subjects discriminated between words presented in a prescan study list and words new to the experiment. During the 30 s scanning interval, the ratio of old and new words was 0:20, 4:16 or 16:4, depending on the experimental condition. Outside this interval, the ratio was 50:50 in all three conditions. The requirement in the control task was to discriminate between two character strings, the ratios of which were also manipulated during the 30 s scanning interval. Employing the control task as a covariate, analysis with statistical parametric mapping revealed that regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) covaried with increasing density of old items in three regions of prefrontal cortex: right dorsolateral [Brodmann area (BA) 9/46], right medial (BA 32/8) and bilateral frontopolar cortex (BA 10). It is concluded that the prefrontal cortex, especially in the right hemisphere, is more active when a retrieval attempt succeeds than when it fails. This finding is consistent with the idea that the prefrontal cortex supports processes that operate selectively on the products of memory retrieval.

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 · 10.1093/brain/119.6.2073

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Frontal activations have consistently been observed during successful declarative retrieval.

    “Frontal activations have consistently been observed during successful declarative retrieval (Rugg et al., 1996; Buckner et al., 1998; McDermott et al., 2003; Simons and Spiers, 2003; Spaniol et al., 2009; Huijbers et al., 2013).”

    From Neural Correlates of Long-Term Memory Enhancement Following Retrieval Practice (2021) · cites this paper as Rugg et al., 1996

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: 6

  1. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS. Source monitoring. [Review]. Psychol Bull 1993; 114: 3-28.
  2. Petrides M. Frontal lobes and working memory: evidence from investigations of the effects of cortical excisions in nonhuman primates. In: Boiler F, Grafman J, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology. Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994: 59-82.
  3. Smith ML. Memory disorders associated with temporal lobe lesions. In: Boiler F. Grafman J, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1989: 91-106.
  4. Squire LR. Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans [published erratum appears in Psychol Rev 1992; 99: 582]. Psychol Rev 1992: 99: 195-231.
  5. Stuss DT, Eskes GA, Foster JK. Experimental neuropsychological studies of frontal lobe functions. In: Boiler F, Grafman J, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology, Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994: 149-85.
  6. Tulving E, Kapur S, Markowitsch HJ, Craik FIM, Habib R, Houle S. Neuroanatomical correlates of retrieval in episodic memory: auditory sentence recognition [see comments]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91: 2012-5. Comment in: Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91: 1989-91.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rugg, M. D., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, C. D., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Dolan, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Rugg, M. D.
Venue
Brain
Published
1996
Volume
119
Issue
6
Pages
2073-2083
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2095422075
Cited by
361
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
19.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
prefrontal cortex, memory retrieval, recognition memory, regional cerebral blood flow, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, frontopolar cortex, right hemisphere, word recognition, statistical parametric mapping
MeSH terms
Adult, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Humans, Male, Memory, Radionuclide Imaging, 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