Cited by 74Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Examining working memory task acquisition in a disrupted neural network

Hillary, Frank G., Medaglia, John D., Gates, Kathleen, Molenaar, Peter C., Slocomb, Julia, Peechatka, Alyssa, Good, David C.·2011·Brain

Abstract

There is mounting literature that examines brain activation during tasks of working memory in individuals with neurological disorders such as traumatic brain injury. These studies represent a foundation for understanding the functional brain changes that occur after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury, but the focus on topographical brain-'activation' differences ignores potential alterations in how nodes communicate within a distributed neural network. The present study makes use of the most recently developed connectivity modelling (extended-unified structural equation model) to examine performance during a well-established working-memory task (the n-back) in individuals sustaining moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. The goal is to use the findings observed in topographical activation analysis as the basis for second-level effective connectivity modelling. Findings reveal important between-group differences in within-hemisphere connectivity during task acquisition, with the control sample demonstrating rapid within-left hemisphere connectivity increases and the traumatic brain injury sample demonstrating consistently elevated within-right hemisphere connectivity. These findings also point to important maturational effects from 'early' to 'late' during task performance, including diminished right prefrontal cortex involvement and an anterior to posterior shift in connectivity with increased task exposure. We anticipate that this approach to functional imaging data analysis represents an important future direction for understanding how neural plasticity is expressed in brain disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awr043

Cites

46 of 46 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
Hillary, F. G., Medaglia, J. D., Gates, K., Molenaar, P. C., Slocomb, J., Peechatka, A., & Good, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US)
Venue
Brain
Published
2011-05
Volume
134
Issue
5
Pages
1555-1570
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2107337758
Cited by
74
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
working memory, traumatic brain injury, n-back task, effective connectivity, right prefrontal cortex, neuroplasticity, task acquisition
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Injuries, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Time Factors

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