JN Journal of Applied Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Neurophysiol 95: 3281-3285, 2006. First published January 18, 2006; doi:10.1152/jn.01011.2005
0022-3077/06 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/5/3281    most recent
01011.2005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Genovesio, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Genovesio, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, S. P.

REPORT

Neuronal Activity Related to Elapsed Time in Prefrontal Cortex

Aldo Genovesio, Satoshi Tsujimoto and Steven P. Wise

Laboratory of Systems Neuroscience, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland

Submitted 28 September 2005; accepted in final form 11 January 2006


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
We studied prefrontal cortex activity during a saccade task. On each trial, one of three delay periods elapsed between the onset of a visual stimulus and its offset, which triggered a saccade. After stimulus offset, many neurons showed phasic increases in activity that depended on the duration of the preceding delay period. This delay-dependent activity varied only weakly with reaction time and instead appeared to reflect a more general aspect of elapsed time.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Temporal information contributes to many neural functions, including coordination, interval estimation and episodic memory (Buonomano and Karmarkar 2002Go; Ivry and Spencer 2004Go). Neuronal correlates of elapsed time occur in posterior parietal cortex (Janssen and Shadlen 2005Go; Leon and Shadlen 2003Go) and premotor cortex (Lucchetti et al. 2005Go), and the cerebellum plays a key role in timing functions (Ivry and Spencer 2004Go). Evidence also supports a role for prefrontal cortex (PF). Neuroimaging data implicate PF in time-discrimination tasks (Lewis and Miall 2003Go; Onoe et al. 2001Go; Rao et al. 2001Go), and damage or stimulation there causes deficits in time estimation (Jones et al. 2004Go; Koch et al. 2002Go, 2003Go).

Despite this evidence, time relationships remain little studied in PF. Previous neurophysiological reports show, for example, that PF activity reflects the time until reward (Roesch and Olson 2005Go; Tsujimoto and Sawaguchi 2005aGo). A reward that occurs sooner has more value than one that comes later, however, and this factor could account for reward-delay activity, rather than timing per se. One previous report describes PF activity for two durations of visual stimuli in a temporal matching-to-sample task (Sakurai et al. 2004Go), and another one deals with the timing of a motor response (Niki and Watanabe 1979Go). Neither of these studies, however, shows whether PF neurons reflect time relationships per se or reaction time (RT) instead. This distinction is important because the elapse of time often affects RT (Luce 1986Go).

In a study of abstract response strategies (Genovesio et al. 2005Go), we observed a delay-dependent signal. The design of our study allowed us to test whether that signal reflected RT, reinforcement value, or the passage of time per se.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Two rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta, 8.8 and 7.7 kg) performed a saccade task (Fig. 1A), called the strategy task in a previous report (Genovesio et al. 2005Go). After the monkeys fixated a central light spot (0.7°), three potential eye-movement targets (2.2° squares) appeared on a video monitor, 14° up, right and left from the center. Following a 1.0-s fixation period, a visual instruction stimulus (IS) appeared at the fixation point for 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 s (selected pseudorandomly). The IS consisted of two superimposed ASCII characters, and its disappearance triggered a saccadic eye movement to one of the three targets. The correct target for a given trial depended on the sequence of ISs from trial to trial. When the IS repeated from the previous trial, the correct choice was the same target as was rewarded on that previous trial. When the IS differed from that on the previous trial, one of the other two targets was correct. After the monkeys fixated a target for 1.0 s, a fixed quantity of fluid reward followed contingently 0.5 s later.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1. A: sequence of events and video screens (gray rectangles). As monkeys fixated (dashed lines) the central spot (white dot), a visual instruction stimulus (IS)—a "?" character superimposed on an "S" in this example—appeared for a variable interval. Squares depict saccade targets. IS offset served as the trigger ("go") stimulus. B: penetration sites, a composite of the two monkeys. AS, arcuate sulcus; PS, principal sulcus.

 
Single-neuron activity was recorded from PF, using ≤16 platinum-iridium electrodes (0.5–1.5 M{Omega} at 1 kHz) inserted into the cortex with a multielectrode drive (Thomas Recording, Giessen, Germany). Single-unit potentials were isolated off-line using a cluster cutting technique (Off Line Sorter, Plexon, Dallas, TX). Standard histological methods (Genovesio et al. 2005Go) showed that the lateral recordings came primarily from area 46 and that the medial recordings came from areas 8, 9, and rostral 6 (Fig. 1B), with no regional specializations relevant to this report.

To examine delay-dependent signals, we measured neuronal discharge rates during a 300-ms period beginning with the offset of the IS, termed the postdelay period. We used a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) ({alpha} = 0.05), with factors delay and target. In a separate test, we did the same analysis for the prereward and postreward periods. Post hoc tests contrasted delay levels (least significant difference method). We ran the ANOVA both with and without balancing for the number of trials for each saccade target, with comparable results. For multiple regression analysis, we used delay duration (short, intermediate, long) and RT to predict discharge rates.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
We analyzed only correctly performed trials, which exceeded 95% of the trials in both monkeys. The RTs showed a delay-duration effect, with longer delays associated with faster RTs (one-way ANOVA, F2,4420 = 42.4, F2,2749 = 313.8 for monkeys 1 and 2, respectively, P < 0.001). For monkey 1, mean RTs (±SD) were 284 ± 49, 271 ± 70, and 261 ± 79 ms for short, intermediate and long delays, respectively. For monkey 2, the analogous RTs were 321 ± 39, 296 ± 41, and 275 ± 39 ms. Post hoc tests revealed that all three pairwise comparisons were significant for both monkeys (P < 0.01). Neither peak velocity nor saccade amplitude varied significantly with delay duration (F2,4420 = 1.7, F2,2749 = 0.4 for velocity in monkeys 1 and 2, respectively, F2,4420 = 0.5, F2,2749 = 0.7 for amplitude, P >> 0.1).

Of 1,454 PF neurons recorded, 132 (9%) showed postdelay activity levels that depended on the preceding delay duration (ANOVA, P < 0.05). According to post hoc tests, 125 (95%) had significant activity differences between short and long delays, 71% differed for short versus intermediate delays, and 66% did so for long versus intermediate delays. Most cells had a preference (i.e., their highest activity) for either short delays (Fig. 2, A and C left) or long delays (Fig. 2, B and C right), with fewer preferring intermediate delays. Of the 132 delay-dependent cells, 41 (31%) showed significant differences among the three saccade directions, but the delay effect remained evident (Fig. 2D). On a cell-by-cell, rank-order basis (Fig. 3A), the activity of 75% of delay-dependent cells varied monotonically with the length of delay, with comparable proportions preferring long and short delays. Only 12% had a preference for intermediate delays.


Figure 2
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2. A and B: two delay-dependent PF neurons. Activity (raster dots) is aligned on the end of the delay period (vertical lines), sorted by time to saccade onset (square marks). Background shading shows the postdelay period. Fix, onset of fixation; IS on, onset of IS; IS off, offset of IS; Sac on, onset of saccade. C: discharge rates during the postdelay period for each trial plotted against RT, from the cells in A (C, left) and B (C, right), respectively. Symbols in the box near the ordinate axis represent mean (±SE) activity for each delay interval. Partial regression coefficients in C left: beta = –0.62, P < 0.001 for delay, beta = –0.02, P > 0.1 for RT; in C right: beta = 0.54, P < 0.001 for delay, beta = 0.20, P < 0.05 for RT. D: delay-dependent activity for the cells in A (D, left) and B (D, right), showing activity (±SE) for the left (L), up (U), and right (R) saccade directions. Sp, spikes.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3. A: classification of postdelay activity by rank order of activity levels for short (S), intermediate (I) and long (L) delays. B: multiple regression analysis for postdelay activity. Mean (±SE) of the standardized partial regression coefficients of the cells preferring short delays (dark gray) and long delays (light gray). RT, saccadic reaction time.

 
Because both RT and delay duration could have affected postdelay activity, we used multiple linear regressions to evaluate the relative contributions. Delay duration had a much greater effect on postdelay activity than did RT (Fig. 3B). A greater number of cells showed significant regression coefficients for delay duration than for RT (49% vs. 19% for cells preferring short delays, 62% vs. 14% for those preferring long delays), which was a significant difference ({chi}2 = 10.6 for the former, {chi}2 = 28.8 for the latter, P < 0.01 for both). Figure 2C shows the relation between activity, delay duration, and RT for two neurons. In an additional analysis, we computed two regression models, one for activity versus RT, the other for activity versus both RT and delay duration. The result showed that |R| significantly increased with the addition of delay duration to a model using RT alone (for monkey 1: 0.30 vs. 0.14, paired t-test, t = 4.51, P < 0.001; for monkey 2: 0.33 vs. 0.20, t = 8.21, P < 0.001, both averaged as in Fig. 3B). Similarly, |R| significantly increased with the addition of delay duration to models using either saccade amplitude (for monkey 1: 0.27 vs. 0.10, t = 9.4, P < 0.001; for monkey 2: 0.22 vs. 0.10, t = 12.7, P < 0.001) or peak saccade velocity (for monkey 1: 0.28 vs. 0.12, t = 9.4, P < 0.001; for monkey 2: 0.26 vs. 0.15, t = 11.4, P < 0.001).

Population activity averages showed that phasic modulation reached a peak approximately 200 ms after IS offset, both for cells preferring short delays (Fig. 4A) and for cells preferring long delays (Fig. 4B). As with the single-cell data (Fig. 3A), these population averages showed a monotonic relationship of peak activity with delay duration. Postdelay population activity differed in delay-dependent cells by approximately 3.9–6.6 spikes/s between short and long delays (Fig. 4, C and D, preferred saccade direction), which was statistically significant (repeated measures ANOVA, F2,66 = 41.4 and F2,56 = 41.8 for cells preferring short delays, monkeys 1 and 2, respectively; F2,52 = 14.4 and F2,70 = 59.7 for cells preferring long delays, all P < 0.001).


Figure 4
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4. Postdelay population activity. A and B: average activity levels ± SE for total populations in each class for each monkey. The population sizes are given in the corresponding panels of C and D. Insets: population averages constructed from normalized z-scores for 10 cells with the greatest differential postdelay activity. A: short delay preference, full scale z = 2.0 for left inset, z = 1.2 for right inset. B: long-delay preference, full scale z = 1.2 for left inset, z = 1.0 for right inset. C and D. Mean (±SE) firing rates for all delay-dependent cells, for each cell's preferred saccade target (Best, black bars) and for the other two targets, the one with the lowest activity (Worst, light gray) and the one with intermediate activity levels (Middle, dark gray). C, short delay-, D, long-delay preference. Sp, spikes.

 
Activity before IS offset, at the end of the delay period, was also of interest. For cells preferring short delays, population activity appeared to increase at the end of short-delay intervals, but not longer ones, at least in monkey 2 (Fig. 4A, right). (The average shown in Fig. 4A, left, was dominated by two unusual cells and was not considered further.) For cells preferring long delays, activity prior to IS offset varied according to the delay interval (Fig. 4B, arrows), with activity increasing most for long delays. To examine this relationship on a cell-by-cell basis, we computed a delay-effect index, (RS – RL)/(RS + RL), for both the final 300 ms of the delay period and postdelay activity, where RS and RL are mean discharge rates for short- and long-delay trials, respectively. The correlation observed in the population averages (e.g., Fig. 4B), where higher activity just before IS offset was associated with higher postdelay activity, was not seen for this cell-by-cell delay-effect index, either for cells preferring short delays (r = 0.13 and r = –0.21, monkeys 1 and 2, respectively) or for those preferring long delays (r = 0.20 and r = 0.09, all P > 0.1). The absolute magnitude of the delay-effect index reflected a three- to four-fold difference in postdelay activity (0.54 ± 0.28 and 0.55 ± 0.28, mean ± SD, for monkeys 1 and 2, respectively) and a much smaller difference at the end of the delay period (0.30 ± 0.32 and 0.06 ± 0.38).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
We found PF neurons with phasic, postdelay activity modulation that varied with the duration of the preceding delay period, but this variation did not correlate strongly or consistently with RT. Although all three variables—postdelay activity, delay duration, and RT—correlated with each other, the correlation between delay duration and activity was much stronger than the correlation with RT, and only the former attained statistical significance. The weak correlation between neuronal activity and RT in PF contrasts with oculomotor areas such as the frontal eye fields and the superior colliculus, which show strong negative correlations between neuronal activity and RT (Dorris et al. 1997Go; Everling and Munoz 2000Go). These results suggest that the delay-dependent signal in PF does not contribute to the precise timing of an eye movement, as would be expected for frontal eye fields and superior colliculus, but plays a role in other processes related to time. Note that although these PF cells showed postdelay activity rates that varied with delay duration, there is no indication that they signaled temporal information at other times during the trial. Instead, they did so during a particular part of each trial, and likely played other roles at other times, as commonly observed for PF neurons (Isomura et al. 2003Go; Kim and Shadlen 1999Go; Rao et al. 1997Go; Takeda and Funahashi 2002Go). Because all task events including the stimulus, its foveal location, the probability and quantity of reward, and the eye movement that followed were identical for the three delay intervals, these factors did not contribute to the delay-dependency described here. Remaining possibilities include a role in estimating the preceding time interval, encoding its rank-order (shortest, longest, intermediate), or contributing to temporal aspects of event memories.

The finding of monotonic variation of postdelay activity with elapsed time, which occurred in 75% of the delay-dependent cells (Fig. 3A) and appeared prominently in the population averages (Fig. 4), provides some additional insight. It suggests a parametric, rather than categorical, encoding of temporal information because categorical encoding would likely involve all three durations equally. Whether delay-dependent activity has a parametric or categorical nature might depend on whether the task requires categorization (see Duncan 2001Go), and the present task had no such requirement. Alternatively, the postdelay activity of these cells might have signaled the degree of expectation of the "go" signal (see Janssen and Shadlen 2005Go) that had been attained during the preceding delay period. This property also would account for the paucity of cells with an intermediate-delay preference in the postdelay period. Expectation-related signals in PF could be important for monitoring events expected at specific times during a trial (Tsujimoto and Sawaguchi 2004Go, 2005bGo), perhaps for monitoring goals and intentions (Lau et al. 2004Go; Owen et al. 1996Go; Petrides et al. 2002Go).

It is important to distinguish activity during the delay period from the postdelay activity that forms the basis for most of the present report. Nevertheless, the finding that delay-dependent cells began to increase activity toward the end of the delay period, especially for cells preferring long delays (Fig. 4B), raises some additional issues. Such "anticipatory" or "climbing" activity has been reported in several cortical areas, including PF (Bruce and Goldberg 1985Go; Moody and Wise 2000Go). One modeling study suggested that climbing activity might lead to a phasic activity increase in neurons postsynaptic to these cells, which could read out accumulated temporal information (Durstewitz 2004Go). The postdelay, delay-dependent signal reported here could correspond to this read-out signal, and the increased activity during the delay period accords with human neuroimaging studies showing PF activation during a comparison of time intervals (Rao et al. 2001Go). Alternatively, the anticipatory or climbing activity could play a role in suppressing a response, with progressively stronger suppression required as the delay interval progresses and the probability of IS offset—the "go" or trigger signal—increases. One modeling study showed that hidden units with anticipatory activity played this role and that their removal led to premature outputs (Moody and Wise 2000Go). Finally, anticipatory activity during the delay period might reflect the conditional probability of the "go" cue, as has been reported for posterior parietal cortex (Janssen and Shadlen 2005Go). This probability increases as the delay period progresses, but examination of population averages from PF, either aligned on IS onset or IS offset, yielded no evidence of such a signal for the population reported here (i.e., cells with delay-dependent, postdelay activity). We obtained the same result from two other, overlapping populations: cells with delay-dependent activity during the final 300 ms of the delay period and cells with statistically significant delay-period activity relative to the fixation period.

Finally, the delay-dependent signal observed here seems unlikely to code fine or precise time intervals or to play a role in timing per se: only a few spikes per second distinguish delay intervals that vary by 1 s, a sensitivity of only approximately 0.005 spikes/s/ms. Instead, this postdelay signal seems best suited to index event durations relevant to the present task, as suggested by Duncan's (2001)Go adaptive coding model of PF function.


   GRANTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of National Institutes of Health.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
 
We thank A. Mitz for engineering, J. Fellows for training, A. Cummings for histology, and P. Brasted for design, training and data collection. R. Ivry provided useful comments on an earlier draft.


   FOOTNOTES
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: Steven P. Wise, Laboratory of Systems Neuroscience, National Institute of Mental Health, Building 49, Room B1EE17, 49 Convent Drive, MSC 4401, Bethesda, MD 20892-4401 (Email: stevenwise{at}mail.nih.gov)


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Bruce CJ and Goldberg ME. Primate frontal eye fields. I. Single neurons discharging before saccades. J Neurophysiol 53: 603–635, 1985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Buonomano DV and Karmarkar UR. How do we tell time? Neuroscientist 8: 42–51, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Dorris MC, Paré M, and Munoz DP. Neuronal activity in monkey superior colliculus related to the initiation of saccadic eye movements. J Neurosci 17: 8566–8579, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Duncan J. An adaptive coding model of neural function in prefrontal cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci 2: 820–829, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Durstewitz D. Neural representation of interval time. Neuroreport 15: 745–749, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Everling S and Munoz DP. Neuronal correlates for preparatory set associated with pro-saccades and anti-saccades in the primate frontal eye field. J Neurosci 20: 387–400, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Genovesio A, Brasted PJ, Mitz AR, and Wise SP. Prefrontal cortex activity related to abstract response strategies. Neuron 47: 307–320, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Isomura Y, Ito Y, Akazawa T, Nambu A, and Takada M. Neural coding of "attention for action" and "response selection" in primate anterior cingulate cortex. J Neurosci 23: 8002–2012, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ivry RB and Spencer RM. The neural representation of time. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14: 225–232, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Janssen P and Shadlen MN. A representation of the hazard rate of elapsed time in macaque area LIP. Nat Neurosci 8: 234–241, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Jones CR, Rosenkranz K, Rothwell JC, and Jahanshahi M. The right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is essential in time reproduction: an investigation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Exp Brain Res 158: 366–372, 2004.[Web of Science][Medline]

Kim J-N and Shadlen MN. Neural correlates of a decision in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the macaque. Nat Neurosci 2: 176–185, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Koch G, Oliveri M, Carlesimo GA, and Caltagirone C. Selective deficit of time perception in a patient with right prefrontal cortex lesion. Neurology 59: 1658–1659, 2002.[Free Full Text]

Koch G, Oliveri M, Torriero S, and Caltagirone C. Underestimation of time perception after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 60: 1844–1846, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lau HC, Rogers RD, Haggard P, and Passingham RE. Attention to intention. Science 303: 1208–1210, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Leon MI and Shadlen MN. Representation of time by neurons in the posterior parietal cortex of the macaque. Neuron 38: 317–327, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Lewis PA and Miall RC. Brain activation patterns during measurement of sub- and supra-second intervals. Neuropsychologia 41: 1583–1592, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Lucchetti C, Ulrici A, and Bon L. Dorsal premotor areas of nonhuman primate: functional flexibility in the time domain. Eur J Appl Physiol 95: 121–130, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Luce RD. Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.

Moody SL and Wise SP. A model that accounts for activity prior to sensory inputs and responses during matching-to-sample tasks. J Cogn Neurosci 12: 429–448, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Niki H and Watanabe M. Prefrontal and cingulate unit activity during timing behavior in the monkey. Brain Res 171: 213–224, 1979.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Onoe H, Komori M, Onoe K, Takechi H, Tsukada H, and Watanabe Y. Cortical networks recruited for time perception: a monkey positron emission tomography (PET) study. Neuroimage 13: 37–45, 2001.[Web of Science][Medline]

Owen AM, Evans AC, and Petrides M. Evidence for a two-stage model of spatial working memory processing within the lateral frontal cortex: a positron emission tomography study. Cereb Cortex 6: 31–38, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Petrides M, Alivisatos B, and Frey S. Differential activation of the human orbital, midventrolateral, and mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during the processing of visual stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 5649–5654, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rao SM, Mayer AR, and Harrington DL. The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Nat Neurosci 4: 317–323, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Rao SC, Rainer G, and Miller EK. Integration of what and where in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science 276: 821–824, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Roesch MR and Olson CR. Neuronal activity dependent on anticipated and elapsed delay in macaque prefrontal cortex, frontal and supplementary eye fields, and premotor cortex. J Neurophysiol 94: 1469–1497, 2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Sakurai Y, Takahashi S, and Inoue M. Stimulus duration in working memory is represented by neuronal activity in the monkey prefrontal cortex. Eur J Neurosci 20: 1069–1080, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Takeda K and Funahashi S. Prefrontal task-related activity representing visual cue location or saccade direction in spatial working memory tasks. J Neurophysiol 87: 567–588, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tsujimoto S and Sawaguchi T. Neuronal activity representing temporal prediction of reward in the primate prefrontal cortex. J Neurophysiol 93: 3687–3692, 2005a.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tsujimoto S and Sawaguchi T. Context-dependent representation of response-outcome in monkey prefrontal neurons. Cereb Cortex 15: 888–898, 2005b.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tsujimoto S and Sawaguchi T. Neuronal representation of response-outcome in the primate prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 14: 47–55, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
D. Bueti and V. Walsh
The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes
Phil Trans R Soc B, July 12, 2009; 364(1525): 1831 - 1840.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
G. Koch, M. Oliveri, and C. Caltagirone
Neural networks engaged in milliseconds and seconds time processing: evidence from transcranial magnetic stimulation and patients with cortical or subcortical dysfunction
Phil Trans R Soc B, July 12, 2009; 364(1525): 1907 - 1918.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
O. Tudusciuc and A. Nieder
Contributions of Primate Prefrontal and Posterior Parietal Cortices to Length and Numerosity Representation
J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2009; 101(6): 2984 - 2994.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cereb CortexHome page
N. D. Walsh and M. L. Phillips
Interacting Outcome Retrieval, Anticipation, and Feedback Processes in the Human Brain
Cereb Cortex, May 8, 2009; (2009) bhp098v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
T. K. Berdyyeva and C. R. Olson
Monkey Supplementary Eye Field Neurons Signal the Ordinal Position of Both Actions and Objects
J. Neurosci., January 21, 2009; 29(3): 591 - 599.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
M. A. Lebedev, J. E. O'Doherty, and M. A. L. Nicolelis
Decoding of Temporal Intervals From Cortical Ensemble Activity
J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2008; 99(1): 166 - 186.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/5/3281    most recent
01011.2005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Genovesio, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Genovesio, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wise, S. P.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2006 by the The American Physiological Society.