The proposal that PFC sub-regions work together has been addressed by many theories. Shimamura (2000) proposed the dynamic filtering theory, suggesting that the PFC acts as a selective filter in terms of information inputs. In contrast, Miller & Cohen (2001) suggested that cognitive control derives from the active maintenance of PFC activity that represents goals and the means to achieve them in terms of a map of the cortical pathways needed to perform them. More specific theories have been developed to address explicit sub-regions. Interestingly the majority of the discussed research involves activity of anterior PFC (BA10) and Ramnani & Owen (2004) provide a model of the BA10 function that could provide some insight into its involvement.
…show more content…
Braver and Bongiolatti (2002) employed fMRI to test the hypothesis that the aPFC is involved in processes relating to the observation and organisation of sub-goals whilst also holding information in working memory (WM). Control subjects were instructed to monitor the presence of a specific concrete probe word (e.g. LIME) following a specific abstract word (e.g. FATE). In the experimental condition (sub-goal WM condition), subjects had to monitor for the presence of any concrete probe word that immediately followed any abstract cue word. The later condition required subject to semantically classify the probe word whilst the cue was maintained in WM; requiring subjects to integrate information. A further control condition instructed subjects to perform a task where they had to classify words into abstract or concrete, without WM demands. Results showed activation within the aPFC, with significant activation during the sub-goal WM condition, but no activity in either of the control groups, suggesting that the aPFC is selectively engaged when there is a need to monitor and integrate sub-goals during WM tasks. Braver and Bongiolatti (2002) provided some support for the branching theory, however Chahine, Diekhof, Tinnermann and Gruber (2015) argue that the aPFC (BA10) is not specific to
Braver and Bongiolatti (2002) employed fMRI to test the hypothesis that the aPFC is involved in processes relating to the observation and organisation of sub-goals whilst also holding information in working memory (WM). Control subjects were instructed to monitor the presence of a specific concrete probe word (e.g. LIME) following a specific abstract word (e.g. FATE). In the experimental condition (sub-goal WM condition), subjects had to monitor for the presence of any concrete probe word that immediately followed any abstract cue word. The later condition required subject to semantically classify the probe word whilst the cue was maintained in WM; requiring subjects to integrate information. A further control condition instructed subjects to perform a task where they had to classify words into abstract or concrete, without WM demands. Results showed activation within the aPFC, with significant activation during the sub-goal WM condition, but no activity in either of the control groups, suggesting that the aPFC is selectively engaged when there is a need to monitor and integrate sub-goals during WM tasks. Braver and Bongiolatti (2002) provided some support for the branching theory, however Chahine, Diekhof, Tinnermann and Gruber (2015) argue that the aPFC (BA10) is not specific to