Cited by 62Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Repetition Priming Influences Distinct Brain Systems: Evidence From Task-Evoked Data and Resting-State Correlations

Open access
Wig, Gagan S., Buckner, Randy L., Schacter, Daniel L.·2009·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Behavioral dissociations suggest that a single experience can separately influence multiple processing components. Here we used a repetition priming functional magnetic resonance imaging paradigm that directly contrasted the effects of stimulus and decision changes to identify the underlying brain systems. Direct repetition of stimulus features caused marked reductions in posterior regions of the inferior temporal lobe that were insensitive to whether the decision was held constant or changed between study and test. By contrast, prefrontal cortex showed repetition effects that were sensitive to the exact stimulus-to-decision mapping. Analysis of resting-state functional connectivity revealed that the dissociated repetition effects are embedded within distinct brain systems. Regions that were sensitive to changes in the stimulus correlated with perceptual cortices, whereas the decision changes attenuated activity in regions correlated with middle-temporal regions and a frontoparietal control system. These results thus explain the long-known dissociation between perceptual and conceptual components of priming by revealing how a single experience can separately influence distinct, concurrently active brain systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.91213.2008

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Wig, G. S., Buckner, R. L., & Schacter, D. L.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2009-05
Volume
101
Issue
5
Pages
2632-2648
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2092020136
Cited by
62
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 15
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 060941, R01MH060941)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
repetition priming, perceptual priming, conceptual priming, inferior temporal lobe, prefrontal cortex, resting-state functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Brain Mapping, Color Perception, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Rest, Young Adult

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