Complementary topology of maintenance and manipulation brain networks in working memory.

Working memory (WM) is assumed to consist of a process that sustains memory representations in an active state (maintenance) and a process that operates on these activated representations (manipulation). We examined evidence for two distinct, concurrent cognitive functions supporting maintenance and manipulation abilities by testing brain activity as participants performed a WM alphabetization task. Maintenance was investigated by varying the number of letters held in WM and manipulation by varying the number of moves required to sort the list alphabetically. We found that both maintenance and manipulation demand had significant effects on behavior that were associated with different cortical regions: maintenance was associated with bilateral prefrontal and left parietal cortex, and manipulation with right parietal activity, a link that is consistent with the role of parietal cortex in symbolic computations. Both structural and functional architecture of these systems suggested that these cognitive functions are supported by two dissociable brain networks. Critically, maintenance and manipulation functional networks became increasingly segregated with increasing demand, an effect that was positively associated with individual WM ability. These results provide evidence that network segregation may act as a protective mechanism to enable successful performance under increasing WM demand.

Amphetamine disrupts P50 suppression in normal subjects.

BACKGROUND: P50 suppression is viewed as an operational measure of sensory "gating" that is reduced in patients with schizophrenia and their family members. Previous reports have demonstrated that neural gating is regulated by monoaminergic tone in rodent models of P50 suppression. METHODS: In this study, 11 healthy subjects participated in P50 event-related potential recordings at baseline and after either oral administration of dextroamphetamine (.3 mg/kg) or placebo, to determine if the administration of a monoaminergic agonist produces P50 suppression deficits similar to those observed in patients with schizophrenia. RESULTS: As hypothesized, amphetamine disrupted the suppression of the P50 event-related potential. There was a statistically significant decrement in P50 suppression during the amphetamine challenge condition (t10 = 3.15, p < .01, mean difference = -44.1%, d = -2.5) relative to the baseline P50 condition. A comparison of P50 suppression in the placebo and amphetamine conditions (both after a baseline recording session) revealed a significant amphetamine-induced disruption of P50 suppression (t6 = 3.71, p < .01, mean difference = -54.4%, d = -3.14). CONCLUSIONS: The biochemical alterations associated with an amphetamine-induced disruption of P50 suppression in this study may be related to the pathophysiology of P50 suppression deficits in schizophrenia. The findings are consistent with several careful examinations of suppression deficits in rodent models that have identified the monoaminergic regulation of P50 suppression. These data indicate that amphetamine induces a disruption of P50 suppression in normal subjects.