JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (August 18, 2004). doi:10.1152/jn.01002.2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
93/1/128    most recent
01002.2003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sobotka, S.
Right arrow Articles by Ringo, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sobotka, S.
Right arrow Articles by Ringo, J. L.
Submitted on October 17, 2003
Accepted on August 7, 2004

CAN DELAY PERIOD ACTIVITY EXPLAIN WORKING MEMORY?

Stanislaw Sobotka*, Mark D. Diltz, and James L. Ringo

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: stanislaw_sobotka{at}urmc.rochester.edu.

Working memory tasks often lead to elevated delay period discharge rates in cortical neurons. When this altered neuronal discharge rate, called delay activity, shows stimulus specificity it is a good candidate for a neuronal mechanism of working memory. If the delay activity is indeed the carrier of memory then experimental manipulation during the delay period that disrupts delay activity, should also disrupt behavioral performance. We tested this hypothesis in two macaque monkeys with a delayed matching-to-sample task (delay time 8 or 10 s) in which only two visual images were used. In each trial one of the images was randomly chosen as the sample. In control trials (without disruptive stimulation) the monkeys performed at the level of 74.3% correct recognition. Three electrical stimulation levels (mild - a 0.25 s train of electrical pulses; medium - 1 s train; strong - 4 s), delivered to the hippocampal formation or to the orbito-frontal and inferotemporal cortices during delay period, decreased the performance to 71.4%, 66.8%, and 58.0% respectively (all are significantly less than control performance, p<0.05 for mild stimulation and p<0.0001 for other stimulation levels). Three hundred and thirty four cells were recorded from inferotemporal (211 cells) and prefrontal (123 cells) cortices. Significant (p<0.05) stimulus-specific delay activity was found in about one third of recorded cells. For these cells in control trials the mean difference in delay period spike rates between preferred and non-preferred images was 26%. The electrical stimulation reduced this difference to 20% (not a statistically significant reduction) in trials with mild stimulation, to 14% (p<0.05) with medium stimulation and just to 4% (p<0.0005) with strong stimulation. These results, that increasing electrical stimulation reduced neuronal selectivity and at the same time reduced behavioral performance, directly support the hypothesis that delay activity is the carrier of memory through the delay period.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
S. R. Lehky and K. Tanaka
Enhancement of Object Representations in Primate Perirhinal Cortex During a Visual Working-Memory Task
J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2007; 97(2): 1298 - 1310.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
K. Allan and R. Allen
Retrieval Attempts Transiently Interfere with Concurrent Encoding of Episodic Memories But Not Vice Versa
J. Neurosci., September 7, 2005; 25(36): 8122 - 8130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2004 by the The American Physiological Society.