CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationFree Will and Agency

Brain–behavior relationships: evidence from practice effects in spatial stimulus-response compatibility

Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Mazziotta, J. C.·1996·Journal of Neurophysiology
DOI 10.1152/jn.1996.76.1.321
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

1. We measured relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) changes with positron emission tomography and H(2) 15O in six normal subjects repeatedly performing a spatial stimulus-response compatibility task. Subjects had two motor response conditions. They were instructed to respond with the left hand to a left visual field light stimulus and with the right hand to a right visual field light stimulus (compatible condition), and with the right hand to a left visual field light stimulus and with the left hand to a right visual field light stimulus (incompatible condition). Six rCBF measurements per condition were performed in each subject. 2. Reaction times were faster (P < 0.0005) in the compatible (287 ms) than the incompatible (339 ms) condition (spatial stimulus-response compatibility effect). A bilateral increase (P < 0.05) in rCBF in the superior parietal lobule of the two hemispheres was observed during the incompatible condition when compared with the compatible one. No rCBF decreases were observed. Reaction times correlated (P < 0.0001) with the rCBF in the two activated superior parietal lobule areas. 3. Reaction times decreased with practice according to a linear trend (P < 0.05). Practice-related linear rCBF increases (P < 0.05) were observed in the dorsolateral prefrontal, premotor, and primary motor cortex of the left hemisphere. No significant rCBF decreases were observed. 4. Practice did not affect the spatial stimulus-response compatibility effect. A parallel shortening of reaction times was observed in both compatible and incompatible conditions, in both left and right hand responses, and in both left and right visual fields. Accordingly, when rCBF was analyzed, the spatial stimulus-response compatibility by practice interaction did not show any significant activated area. 5. These findings suggest that the two activated areas in the left and right superior parietal lobules subserve the mapping of the visual stimulus spatial attributes onto the motor response spatial attributes and that the rCBF increases in the incompatible response condition represent the more complex computational remapping required when stimuli and response do not match spatially. 6. The dorsolateral prefrontal, premotor, and motor rCBF linear increases in the left hemisphere seem to reflect the effect of practice on cortical processes common to both compatible and incompatible response conditions. These cortical processes presumably strengthen the links between stimuli and responses under different stimulus-response compatibility conditions. The lateralization of the rCBF increases suggests a left hemisphere superiority in these processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1996.76.1.321

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Depending on the task, neuroimaging studies have reported a general decrease in cortical activity, increases in cortical activity, or a more complex redistribution where activity increases in some areas and decreases in others during practice.

    “Depending on the task, some studies have reported a general decrease in cortical activity [52–55], a few have reported increases [56–59], and some have reported a more complex redistribution where activity increases in some areas and decreases in others [60–62].”

    From Cortical and basal ganglia contributions to habit learning and automaticity (2010) · cites this paper as [59]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., & Mazziotta, J. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1996-07-01
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
321-331
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
DOI
10.1152/jn.1996.76.1.321
OpenAlex
W2160734434
Cited by
135
References
60
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k08ns001646-05)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1K08 NS01646-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
spatial stimulus-response compatibility, practice effects, relative cerebral blood flow, superior parietal lobule, reaction time, hemispheric lateralization, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, primary motor cortex, stimulus-response mapping, cognitive control, brain-behavior relationship
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Spatial Behavior, Tomography, Emission-Computed

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