轻度认知损害额叶冲突加工机制的事件相关电位研究
|
摘要
目的:探讨额叶对冲突信息的加工处理机制及其随龄变化,探索轻度认知损害(mild cognitive impairment,MCI)患者冲突信息加工处理机制的事件相关电位(event-related potentials,ERPs)变化特点。
方法:研究对象为15例遗忘型轻度认知损害患者(患者组)、15例年龄、性别、受教育年限匹配的正常老年人(老年组)和15例青年成人(青年组)。ERPs检查采用改良的Eriksen flanker视觉刺激范式,刺激材料由不同朝向的箭头组成,包括三种状态:匹配状态(<<<<<或>>>>>),表示无冲突发生;中性状态(++<++或++>++),表示知觉层面发生冲突;冲突状态(<<><<或>><>>),表示知觉及反应层面均发生冲突。中性状态与匹配状态的差异说明知觉层面存在flanker干扰效应,冲突状态与中性状态的差异说明反应层面存在flanker干扰效应。要求被试者对中间的箭头方向作反应,指向左则左手按键,指向右则右手按键,而忽略旁边的箭头或“+”。同时记录32导脑电、正确率及反应时。
结果:(1)行为指标:中性状态与匹配状态相比较、冲突状态与中性状态相比较,青年组、老年组与患者组的正确率下降、反应时延长,即正确率与反应时在知觉层面、反应层面上均存在flanker干扰效应。与青年组相比较,老年组正确率及其干扰效应均无显著差异;反应时则明显延长,在反应层面上具有更为明显的干扰效应。与老年组相比,患者组冲突状态下正确率显著降低,各刺激状态下反应时均明显延长,正确率、反应时在反应层面上均具有更为显著的干扰效应。(2)N2成分:不同刺激状态下青年组N2潜伏期、波幅均无变化。与青年组相比较,老年组各刺激状态下N2潜伏期、波幅均无显著差异,仅头皮分布后移。患者组N2潜伏期较老年组显著延长,波幅无变化。LORETA源定位分析显示:各刺激状态下青年组N2所在时间窗内可见左前辅助运动区、左前额叶内侧面以及右前额背外侧区域不同程度的激活;老年组匹配状态下双侧颞叶、双前额叶背外侧区域激活,左前额内侧面电流活动弱;中性状态下,双前额叶
Objective: To explore the working mechanism and aging change of the frontal conflict processing system, to investigate the change feature of event-related potential in patients with mild cognitive impairment(MCI).Methods: 15 patients with MCI(patient group), 15 healthy matching aging controls(older age group)and 15 youth(youth group) performed a modified Eriksen flanker paradigm, while ERPs, reaction time and correct rate was recorded. The task included three kinds of stimuli: congruent condition (< < < < < or > > > > >), which mean no-conflict;neutral condition (++ < ++ or ++ > ++), conflict existed on perceptual level;conflict condition (< < > < < or > > < > >), conflict existed on both perceptual and response level. The difference between neutral and congruent condition mean interference effect existing on the perceptual level, as the other between conflict and neutral condition mean interference effect existing on the response level. Subjects were required to press the right or left button according to the target arrow.Results: (l)Behavior data: The three groups showed decreased correct rate and prolonged reaction time following different experiment conditions, i.e., both had flanker interference effect on perceptual and response level. The older age group showed identical interference effect of rate but distinct effect of reaction time compared with youth group. Compared with the old age group, the patient group had decreased correct rate to conflict stimuli and prolonged reaction time to all kinds of stimuli. They had more distinct interference effect on response level.(2) N2: Three kinds of stimuli had same latency and amplitude in youth and older age group, only scalp distribution moved behind in the older one. Patients showed longer latency than older age group. LORETA results showed different activation degree in left pre-SMA, left MFG and right DLPFC in youth. In older age group, bilateral temporal lobe and
bilateral DLPFC activated to congruent stimuli and neutral stimuli, current density to conflict stimuli decreased in PFC but highly increased in temporal lobe. In patient group, right DLPFC activated to all kinds of stimuli, left DLPFC was involved in neutral stimuli as temporal lobe, left occipital lobe also activated to conflict stimuli.(3) P300: In youth group, P300 distributed in parietal area, its latency had interference effect both on perceptual and response level. Older people showed widespread distribution and fixed latency of P300, its amplitude had flanker effect on response level. Compared with youth group, latency of old age shortened to neutral and conflict stimuli, amplitude increased to neutral and congruent condition. In patient group, P300 distributed widely, amplitude of right hemisphere was higher than left one. Both latency and amplitude has flanker effect on response level. Patients had lower P300 than older age to all the conditions, only longer latency to neutral stimuli. LORETA results: in youth group, bilateral(especially right)DLPFC, occipital lobe and left MFG activated to congruent stimuli;left temporal lobe was also involved in activation to other two kinds of condition. In older age group, current density focused on bilateral (especially right )temporal lobe, right occipital lobe and left DLPFC to congruent stimuli, right occipital and left DLPFC activated to neutral one;right temporal, right occipital lobe mainly activated to conflict stimuli as current density was more feeble in left DLPFC and left temporal area. In patient group, brain area activated to congruent stimuli included bilateral temporal, right occipital lobe, left DLPFC, left MFG and right precentral gyrus;neutral stimuli evoked current in right occipital lobe and left DLPFC, as conflict condition evoked in left occipital lobe, right DLPFC and temporal lobe. (4) Difference wave N250 subtracted from wave evoked by neutral and congruent stimuli. In youth group, its timewindow is 200-300ms, distributed widely, amplitude in central area was highest. Old age had equal mean amplitude as youth, timewindow was 250-350ms. In patient group, timewindow was 300-400ms. LORETA: In youth group, left temporal lobe and MFG activated apparently, whereas right temporal and bilateral DLPFC activated slightly. Old age only showed current activity in left temporal lobe. Current
density in patient's left temporal lobe decreased but increased in right one and right occipital lobe, besides left DLPFC and left MFG (5) Difference wave N380 subtracted from wave evoked by conflict and neutral stimuli. The timewindow in youth group was 300-450ms, it distributed widely, amplitude of hind head was higher than that of fore head. Older age had a longer timewindow of 350-600ms and same distribution as youth. In patient group, N380 emerged around 400ms after the onset of stimuli, its duration was about 300ms. N380 almost disappeared in fore head area, limited on parietal and occipital area. Its mean amplitude was lower than normal aging. LORETA showed bilateral temporal lobe, DLPFC(especially right) in youth group, left temporal lobe, left DLPFC and left MFG activated in older age one. In patient group, current density mainly focused on left MFG and right DLPFC. Conclusion: (1) The current study found, left pre-SMA and left MFG might concern with conflict monitoring and preparing for executive activation, whereas right DLPFC might play role in executive strategy of response conflict processing, executive control and response selection. (2)When conflict stimuli existed on the perceptual level, the older age and patients showed normal conflict monitoring and interference control function relatively, also mean conflict monitoring function on response level was influenced by high-grade cognitive change slightly. (3)When conflict stimuli interfered on response level, old people showed frontal interference control hypofunction, the response selection, executive control of conflict stimuli stepped down, the non-specificity of related brain structrure increased, cognition resource of left temporal lobe, left DLPFC and left MFG was moved to complete task. The patients with MCI had lower velocity of response selection, executive control, the current density in their left DLPFC and left MFG decreased, which mean significant impairment of frontal interference control function especially on response level, their error rate also increased. (4)In current experiment pattern, ERPss component N2 was not sensitive to flanker interference effect and aging change. The patients had prolonged latency of N2, reflecting their impairment of frontal conflict monitoring, but it could not distinguish perceptual or response
level.(5)In current paradigm, following the stimuli conditions, the change of P300 was not concerned with the change of reaction time, which mean interference effect of conflict stimuli resulting from competed response selection but not the stimuli evaluation. In the older age and patient group, the change of P300 and reaction time were not at equal pace, so P300 was not a appropriate index to reflect the aging change and impairment of frontal conflict monitoring function. (6) Difference wave N250 subtracted from wave evoked by neutral and congruent stimuli. N250 mainly reflected activation of left temporal lobe and left MFG when flanker conflict stimuli existed on perceptual level, but its aging change was not highly significant. N250 was not sensitive to detect the related function impairment of patient with MCI. (7) Difference wave N380 subtracted from wave evoked by conflict and neutral stimuli. When flanker conflict stimuli existed on response level, N38O showed the activation of left DLPFC and left temporal lobe during response selection and executive control processing in normal old people. Following aging and mild cognitive impairment emerging, its onset and duration prolonged, reflecting the obvious impairment of frontal interference control function of patient with MCI. (8)The study suggested that conflict monitoring function is not damaged in earlier period of MCI, but whether it would be influenced following the disease progressing, should be studied further. (9)MCI showed impairment of left DLPFC, that matched the former study results. Compaired with those complex working memory paradigm, the prefrontal cortex function could be accessed by simple conflict processing paradigm, and the method might be used in patients with dementia at earlier grade. So this method might have potential value at cognitive accessing of MCI and mild dementia.
方法:研究对象为15例遗忘型轻度认知损害患者(患者组)、15例年龄、性别、受教育年限匹配的正常老年人(老年组)和15例青年成人(青年组)。ERPs检查采用改良的Eriksen flanker视觉刺激范式,刺激材料由不同朝向的箭头组成,包括三种状态:匹配状态(<<<<<或>>>>>),表示无冲突发生;中性状态(++<++或++>++),表示知觉层面发生冲突;冲突状态(<<><<或>><>>),表示知觉及反应层面均发生冲突。中性状态与匹配状态的差异说明知觉层面存在flanker干扰效应,冲突状态与中性状态的差异说明反应层面存在flanker干扰效应。要求被试者对中间的箭头方向作反应,指向左则左手按键,指向右则右手按键,而忽略旁边的箭头或“+”。同时记录32导脑电、正确率及反应时。
结果:(1)行为指标:中性状态与匹配状态相比较、冲突状态与中性状态相比较,青年组、老年组与患者组的正确率下降、反应时延长,即正确率与反应时在知觉层面、反应层面上均存在flanker干扰效应。与青年组相比较,老年组正确率及其干扰效应均无显著差异;反应时则明显延长,在反应层面上具有更为明显的干扰效应。与老年组相比,患者组冲突状态下正确率显著降低,各刺激状态下反应时均明显延长,正确率、反应时在反应层面上均具有更为显著的干扰效应。(2)N2成分:不同刺激状态下青年组N2潜伏期、波幅均无变化。与青年组相比较,老年组各刺激状态下N2潜伏期、波幅均无显著差异,仅头皮分布后移。患者组N2潜伏期较老年组显著延长,波幅无变化。LORETA源定位分析显示:各刺激状态下青年组N2所在时间窗内可见左前辅助运动区、左前额叶内侧面以及右前额背外侧区域不同程度的激活;老年组匹配状态下双侧颞叶、双前额叶背外侧区域激活,左前额内侧面电流活动弱;中性状态下,双前额叶
Objective: To explore the working mechanism and aging change of the frontal conflict processing system, to investigate the change feature of event-related potential in patients with mild cognitive impairment(MCI).Methods: 15 patients with MCI(patient group), 15 healthy matching aging controls(older age group)and 15 youth(youth group) performed a modified Eriksen flanker paradigm, while ERPs, reaction time and correct rate was recorded. The task included three kinds of stimuli: congruent condition (< < < < < or > > > > >), which mean no-conflict;neutral condition (++ < ++ or ++ > ++), conflict existed on perceptual level;conflict condition (< < > < < or > > < > >), conflict existed on both perceptual and response level. The difference between neutral and congruent condition mean interference effect existing on the perceptual level, as the other between conflict and neutral condition mean interference effect existing on the response level. Subjects were required to press the right or left button according to the target arrow.Results: (l)Behavior data: The three groups showed decreased correct rate and prolonged reaction time following different experiment conditions, i.e., both had flanker interference effect on perceptual and response level. The older age group showed identical interference effect of rate but distinct effect of reaction time compared with youth group. Compared with the old age group, the patient group had decreased correct rate to conflict stimuli and prolonged reaction time to all kinds of stimuli. They had more distinct interference effect on response level.(2) N2: Three kinds of stimuli had same latency and amplitude in youth and older age group, only scalp distribution moved behind in the older one. Patients showed longer latency than older age group. LORETA results showed different activation degree in left pre-SMA, left MFG and right DLPFC in youth. In older age group, bilateral temporal lobe and
bilateral DLPFC activated to congruent stimuli and neutral stimuli, current density to conflict stimuli decreased in PFC but highly increased in temporal lobe. In patient group, right DLPFC activated to all kinds of stimuli, left DLPFC was involved in neutral stimuli as temporal lobe, left occipital lobe also activated to conflict stimuli.(3) P300: In youth group, P300 distributed in parietal area, its latency had interference effect both on perceptual and response level. Older people showed widespread distribution and fixed latency of P300, its amplitude had flanker effect on response level. Compared with youth group, latency of old age shortened to neutral and conflict stimuli, amplitude increased to neutral and congruent condition. In patient group, P300 distributed widely, amplitude of right hemisphere was higher than left one. Both latency and amplitude has flanker effect on response level. Patients had lower P300 than older age to all the conditions, only longer latency to neutral stimuli. LORETA results: in youth group, bilateral(especially right)DLPFC, occipital lobe and left MFG activated to congruent stimuli;left temporal lobe was also involved in activation to other two kinds of condition. In older age group, current density focused on bilateral (especially right )temporal lobe, right occipital lobe and left DLPFC to congruent stimuli, right occipital and left DLPFC activated to neutral one;right temporal, right occipital lobe mainly activated to conflict stimuli as current density was more feeble in left DLPFC and left temporal area. In patient group, brain area activated to congruent stimuli included bilateral temporal, right occipital lobe, left DLPFC, left MFG and right precentral gyrus;neutral stimuli evoked current in right occipital lobe and left DLPFC, as conflict condition evoked in left occipital lobe, right DLPFC and temporal lobe. (4) Difference wave N250 subtracted from wave evoked by neutral and congruent stimuli. In youth group, its timewindow is 200-300ms, distributed widely, amplitude in central area was highest. Old age had equal mean amplitude as youth, timewindow was 250-350ms. In patient group, timewindow was 300-400ms. LORETA: In youth group, left temporal lobe and MFG activated apparently, whereas right temporal and bilateral DLPFC activated slightly. Old age only showed current activity in left temporal lobe. Current
density in patient's left temporal lobe decreased but increased in right one and right occipital lobe, besides left DLPFC and left MFG (5) Difference wave N380 subtracted from wave evoked by conflict and neutral stimuli. The timewindow in youth group was 300-450ms, it distributed widely, amplitude of hind head was higher than that of fore head. Older age had a longer timewindow of 350-600ms and same distribution as youth. In patient group, N380 emerged around 400ms after the onset of stimuli, its duration was about 300ms. N380 almost disappeared in fore head area, limited on parietal and occipital area. Its mean amplitude was lower than normal aging. LORETA showed bilateral temporal lobe, DLPFC(especially right) in youth group, left temporal lobe, left DLPFC and left MFG activated in older age one. In patient group, current density mainly focused on left MFG and right DLPFC. Conclusion: (1) The current study found, left pre-SMA and left MFG might concern with conflict monitoring and preparing for executive activation, whereas right DLPFC might play role in executive strategy of response conflict processing, executive control and response selection. (2)When conflict stimuli existed on the perceptual level, the older age and patients showed normal conflict monitoring and interference control function relatively, also mean conflict monitoring function on response level was influenced by high-grade cognitive change slightly. (3)When conflict stimuli interfered on response level, old people showed frontal interference control hypofunction, the response selection, executive control of conflict stimuli stepped down, the non-specificity of related brain structrure increased, cognition resource of left temporal lobe, left DLPFC and left MFG was moved to complete task. The patients with MCI had lower velocity of response selection, executive control, the current density in their left DLPFC and left MFG decreased, which mean significant impairment of frontal interference control function especially on response level, their error rate also increased. (4)In current experiment pattern, ERPss component N2 was not sensitive to flanker interference effect and aging change. The patients had prolonged latency of N2, reflecting their impairment of frontal conflict monitoring, but it could not distinguish perceptual or response
level.(5)In current paradigm, following the stimuli conditions, the change of P300 was not concerned with the change of reaction time, which mean interference effect of conflict stimuli resulting from competed response selection but not the stimuli evaluation. In the older age and patient group, the change of P300 and reaction time were not at equal pace, so P300 was not a appropriate index to reflect the aging change and impairment of frontal conflict monitoring function. (6) Difference wave N250 subtracted from wave evoked by neutral and congruent stimuli. N250 mainly reflected activation of left temporal lobe and left MFG when flanker conflict stimuli existed on perceptual level, but its aging change was not highly significant. N250 was not sensitive to detect the related function impairment of patient with MCI. (7) Difference wave N380 subtracted from wave evoked by conflict and neutral stimuli. When flanker conflict stimuli existed on response level, N38O showed the activation of left DLPFC and left temporal lobe during response selection and executive control processing in normal old people. Following aging and mild cognitive impairment emerging, its onset and duration prolonged, reflecting the obvious impairment of frontal interference control function of patient with MCI. (8)The study suggested that conflict monitoring function is not damaged in earlier period of MCI, but whether it would be influenced following the disease progressing, should be studied further. (9)MCI showed impairment of left DLPFC, that matched the former study results. Compaired with those complex working memory paradigm, the prefrontal cortex function could be accessed by simple conflict processing paradigm, and the method might be used in patients with dementia at earlier grade. So this method might have potential value at cognitive accessing of MCI and mild dementia.
引文
[1] Lin RT, Lai CL, Tai CT, et al. Prevalence and subtypes of dementia in southern Taiwan: Impact of age, sex, education, and urbanization. J Neurol Sci. 1998, 160(1): 67-75.
[2] Zhou B, Hong Z, and Huang M. Prevalence of dementia in Shanghai urban and rural area. Chinese Journal of Epidemiololgy. 2001, 22(5): 368-371.
[3] Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999, 56(3): 303-308.
[4] Petersen RC, Doody R, Kurz A, et al. Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2001, 58(12): 1985-1992.
[5] Reiman E, Uecker A, Caselli R, et al. Hippocampal volumes in cognitively normal persons at genetic risk for Alzheimer disease. Ann Neurol. 1998, 44(2): 288-291.
[6] Morrison J, Hof P. Life and death of neurons in the aging brain. Science. 1997, 278(5337): 412-419.
[7] Tervo S, Kivipelto M, Hanninen T, et al. Incidence and risk factors for mild cognitive impairment: a population-based three-year follow-up study of cognitively healthy elderly subjects. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004, 17(3): 196-203.
[8] Andreasen N, Minthon L, Davidsson P, et al. Evaluation of CSF-tau and CSF-A beta42 as diagnostic markers for Alzheimer disease in clinical practice. Arch Neurol. 2001, 58(3): 373-379.
[9] Wolf H, Hensel A, Kruggel F, et al. Structural correlates of mild cognitive impairment. Neurobiol Aging. 2004,25(7): 913-24.
[10] Wang W, Miao DM, Xie HG, et al. A cross-section analysis of neuropsychological characteristics of mild cognitive impairment in the senile. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation. 2003,7(19): 2702-2703.
[11] Baddeley AD, Hitch G. Working memory. In: Bower GA. The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 8). New York: Academic Press. 1974. 47-89.
[12] Ridderinkhof KR, Wildenberg WPM, Segalowitz SJ, et al. Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: the role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain Cognition. 2004, 56: 129-140.
[13]Olicheny JM, Morris SK, Ochoa C, et al. Abnormal verbal event related potentials in mild cognitive impairment and incipient Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002,73(4):377-384.
[14]Phillips NA, Chertkow H, Leblanc MM, et al. Functional and anatomical memory indices in patients with or at risk for Alzheimer's disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004,10(2): 200-210.
[15]Perrault N, Picton TW. Event-related potentials recorded from the scalp and nasopharynx II. N2, P3 and slow wave. Electroencephal. Cli. Neurophysiol. 1984, 59(3): 261-278.
[16] Woods DL, Alho K and Algazi A. Intermodal selective attention. I . Effects on event-related potentials to lateralized auditory and visual stimuli. Electroencephal. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1992, 82(5): 341-355.
[17]Wang J, Miyazato H, Randall M, et al.The N200 abnormalities of auditory event-related potentials in patients with panic disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003,27(6): 1013-1021.
[18]Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi. Event-related potentials for response inhibition in Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychologia. 2005,43(6): 967-975.
[19]Funahashi S. Neuronal mechanisms of executive control by the prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Res. 2001, 39(2):147-165.
[20]Stuss DT, Shallice T, Alexander MP, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional functions. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1995, 769(2): 191-211.
[21]Stuss DT, Levine B, Alexander MP, et al. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia. 2000, 38(4):388-402.
[22]Nigg J. Response inhibition and disruptive behaviors. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2003, 1008(2): 170-182.
[23]Chao LL, Knight RT. Prefrontal deficits in attention and inhibitory control with aging. Cerebral Cortex. 1997, 7(1): 63-69.
[24]Raz N, Williamson A, Faith GD, et al. Neuroanatomical and cognitive correlates of adult age differences in acquisition of a perceptual-motor skill. Microsc Res Tech. 2000, 51(1): 85-93.
[25] West RL. An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychol Bull. 1996,120(2): 272-292.
[26] De Jong R. Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance. In Mayr U, Spieler D, Kliegl R(Eds.), Aging and executive control. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. 2001,71-89.
[27] Duncan J, Johnson R, Swales M, et al. Frontal lobe deficits after head injury: unity and diversity of function. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1997, 14(5): 713-741.
[28]Engle RW, Kane MJ, Tuholski SW. Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In Miyake A, Shah P (Eds.), Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999: 102-134.
[29]Baddeley AD. Exploring the central executive. Q J Exp Psychol. 1996, 49A: 5-28.
[30] Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, et al. The unity and diversity of executive function and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogniti Psychol. 2000, 41(1): 49-100.
[31]Stuss DT, Shallice T, Alexander MP, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional functions. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1995, 769(2): 191-211.
[32] Miyake A, Shah P. Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[33]Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophysics. 1974, 16(1): 143-149
[34] Sternberg S. Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of pure and composite measures to reveal them. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2001 ,106(1-2):147-246.
[35] Schumacher EH, Esposito MD. Neurol implementation of response selection in humans as revealed by localized effects of stimulus-response compatibility on brain activation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002, 17(3): 193-201
[36] Veen W, Carter CS. The anterior cingulated as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERPs studies. Physiol Behav. 2002, 77(4-5): 477-482.
[37] Qiu J, Lou YJ, Wang QH, et al. Brain mechanism of Stroop interference effect in Chinese characters. Brain Research. 2006, 1072(1): 186-193.
[38] Park HJ, Kwon JS, Youn T, et al. Statistical prametric mapping of LORETA using high density EEG and individual MRI: application to mismatch negativities in schizophrenia. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002, 17(3): 168-178
[39] Baltes PB, Lindenberger U. Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive function across the adult life span: A new window to the study of cognitive aging? Psychology Aging. 1997, 12(1):12-21
[40] McDowd JM, Shaw RJ. Attention and aging: a functional perspective. In: Craik F I M, Salthouse TA (Eds.), the handbook of aging and cognition (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Wawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 221-292
[41] Mayr U, Spieler DH, Kliegl R. Introduction. In: Mayr U, Spieler D, Kliegl R (Eds.). Aging and executive control. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2001.1-4
[42] Raz N. Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance: Integration of structural and functional findings. In: Craik FIM, Salthouse TA(Eds.). The hankbook of aging and cognition (2nd Eds.)Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000:1-90
[43] Raz N. The aging brain observed in vivo: differential changes and their modifiers. In. Cabeza R, Nyberg L, Park DC (Eds.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging: Linking Cognitive and Cerebral Aging. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[44] 杨文俊.大脑高级功能的神经电生理,第一版。北京:中国科学技术出版社,1998:87-88
[45] Van't ED. Perceptual and motor contributions to performance and ERPs components after incorrect motor activation in a flanker reaction task. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002,113(2): 270-283.
[46] Pritchard WS, Shappell SA, Brandt ME. Psychophysiololgy of N200/N400: a review and classification scheme. Adv Phychophysiol. 1991, 4(1): 43-106
[47] Sams M, Paavilainen P, Alho K, et al. Auditory frequency discrimination and event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr. Clin Neurophysiol. 1985,62(6): 437-448
[48] Naatanen R. The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behv Brain Sci. 1990, 13(2): 201-288.
[49]Mathewson KJ., Dywan J, Segalowitz SJ. Brain bases of error-related ERPss as influenced by age and task .Bio Psychol. 2005, 70(2):88-104.
[50]Ullsperger M, Cramon YV. Subprocesses of performance monitoring: a dissociation of error processing and response competition revealed by event-related fMRI and ERPss. Neuroimage. 2001,14(6): 1387-1401.
[51]Hakwan L,Robert D, Rogers, et al. Dissociating response selection and conflict in the medial frontal surface. Neuroimage. 2006, 29(2): 446-451.
[52]Bune SA, Hazelting E, Scanion MD. Dissociable contributions of prefrontal and parietal cortices to response selection. Neuroimage. 2002, 17(3): 1526-1571.
[53]Cabeza, R., Daselaar, S. M., Dolcos, F., Prince, S. E., Budde, M, & Nyberg, L. Task-independent and task-specific age effects on brain activity during working memory, visual attention, and episodic retrieval. Cerebral Cortex. 2004,14(4): 364-375.
[54]Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J. Evoked potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science. 1965,150(700): 1187-1188.
[55]Ilan AB, Polich J. P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999,110(2): 367-373.
[56]Duncan-Johnson, C.C., Kopell BS. The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. Science. 1981,214(4523):938-940.
[57]Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A. Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev. 1990,97(2): 253-270.
[58]Polich J. Meta-analysis of P300 normative aging studies. Psychophysiology. 1996, 33(4): 334-353.
[59]Botvinik M, Nystrom LE, Fissell K et al. Conflict monitoring versus selection for action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature. 1999,402(6758): 179-181.
[60] Carter CS, Macdonald AM, Botvinik M et al. Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulated cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97(4): 1944-1948.
[61]Veen VV, Holroyd CB, Cohen JD, et al. Errors without conflict: implications for performance moitoring theories o fanterior cingulated cortex. Brain Cogn. 2004, 56(2): 267-276.
[62] Carter CS, Mintun M, Cohen JD. Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: an H2150 PET study of Stroop task performance. Neuroimage. 1995,2(4): 264-272.
[63] Bush G, Whalen PJ, Rosen BR, et al. The counting Stroop: an interference task specialized for function neuroimaging-validation study with functional MRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 1998,6(4): 270-282.
[64] Zeki SM, Watson JDG, Lueck CJ, et al. A direct demonstration of functional specialization in human visual cortex. J Neurosci. 1991,11 (3): 641-649.
[65] Ronald C. Aging, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia. 2000, 18(7): 789-805.
[66] Petersen RC, Stevens JC, Ganguli M, et al. Practive parameter: Early detection of dementia: Mild cognitive impairment(an evidence-based review). Neurology. 2001, 56(9): 1133-1142.
[67] Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh E. "Mini-Mental State": a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiat Res. 1975, 12(3): 189-198.
[68] Morris JC. The clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993, 43(12): 2412-2414.
[69] “临床记忆量表”编制协作组.临床记忆量表手册.中国科学院心理研究所编印,1996年6月.
[70] Zhang X, Wang Y, Li S, et al.Early detection of cognitive impairment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: an event-related potential study. Neurosci-Lett. 2002, 325(2): 99-102.
[71] Wang H, Wang Y, Wang D, et al. Cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease revealed by event-related potential N270. J Neurol Sci. 2002, 194(1): 49-53.
[72] Rosano C, Aizeinstain H, Cochran J, et al. Event-related fMRI investigation of executive in mild cognitive impairment. Society for Neuroscience Abstract Viewer and Itinerary Planner. 2003, 296(1): 17.
[73] Kuats M. Augmenting mental chronometry. The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation. Science. 1971, 197(4305): 192-195.
[74] Duncan-Johnson CC, Kopell BS. The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. Science. 1981,214(4527):938-940.
[2] Zhou B, Hong Z, and Huang M. Prevalence of dementia in Shanghai urban and rural area. Chinese Journal of Epidemiololgy. 2001, 22(5): 368-371.
[3] Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999, 56(3): 303-308.
[4] Petersen RC, Doody R, Kurz A, et al. Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2001, 58(12): 1985-1992.
[5] Reiman E, Uecker A, Caselli R, et al. Hippocampal volumes in cognitively normal persons at genetic risk for Alzheimer disease. Ann Neurol. 1998, 44(2): 288-291.
[6] Morrison J, Hof P. Life and death of neurons in the aging brain. Science. 1997, 278(5337): 412-419.
[7] Tervo S, Kivipelto M, Hanninen T, et al. Incidence and risk factors for mild cognitive impairment: a population-based three-year follow-up study of cognitively healthy elderly subjects. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004, 17(3): 196-203.
[8] Andreasen N, Minthon L, Davidsson P, et al. Evaluation of CSF-tau and CSF-A beta42 as diagnostic markers for Alzheimer disease in clinical practice. Arch Neurol. 2001, 58(3): 373-379.
[9] Wolf H, Hensel A, Kruggel F, et al. Structural correlates of mild cognitive impairment. Neurobiol Aging. 2004,25(7): 913-24.
[10] Wang W, Miao DM, Xie HG, et al. A cross-section analysis of neuropsychological characteristics of mild cognitive impairment in the senile. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation. 2003,7(19): 2702-2703.
[11] Baddeley AD, Hitch G. Working memory. In: Bower GA. The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 8). New York: Academic Press. 1974. 47-89.
[12] Ridderinkhof KR, Wildenberg WPM, Segalowitz SJ, et al. Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: the role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain Cognition. 2004, 56: 129-140.
[13]Olicheny JM, Morris SK, Ochoa C, et al. Abnormal verbal event related potentials in mild cognitive impairment and incipient Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002,73(4):377-384.
[14]Phillips NA, Chertkow H, Leblanc MM, et al. Functional and anatomical memory indices in patients with or at risk for Alzheimer's disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004,10(2): 200-210.
[15]Perrault N, Picton TW. Event-related potentials recorded from the scalp and nasopharynx II. N2, P3 and slow wave. Electroencephal. Cli. Neurophysiol. 1984, 59(3): 261-278.
[16] Woods DL, Alho K and Algazi A. Intermodal selective attention. I . Effects on event-related potentials to lateralized auditory and visual stimuli. Electroencephal. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1992, 82(5): 341-355.
[17]Wang J, Miyazato H, Randall M, et al.The N200 abnormalities of auditory event-related potentials in patients with panic disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003,27(6): 1013-1021.
[18]Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi. Event-related potentials for response inhibition in Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychologia. 2005,43(6): 967-975.
[19]Funahashi S. Neuronal mechanisms of executive control by the prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Res. 2001, 39(2):147-165.
[20]Stuss DT, Shallice T, Alexander MP, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional functions. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1995, 769(2): 191-211.
[21]Stuss DT, Levine B, Alexander MP, et al. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia. 2000, 38(4):388-402.
[22]Nigg J. Response inhibition and disruptive behaviors. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2003, 1008(2): 170-182.
[23]Chao LL, Knight RT. Prefrontal deficits in attention and inhibitory control with aging. Cerebral Cortex. 1997, 7(1): 63-69.
[24]Raz N, Williamson A, Faith GD, et al. Neuroanatomical and cognitive correlates of adult age differences in acquisition of a perceptual-motor skill. Microsc Res Tech. 2000, 51(1): 85-93.
[25] West RL. An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychol Bull. 1996,120(2): 272-292.
[26] De Jong R. Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance. In Mayr U, Spieler D, Kliegl R(Eds.), Aging and executive control. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. 2001,71-89.
[27] Duncan J, Johnson R, Swales M, et al. Frontal lobe deficits after head injury: unity and diversity of function. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1997, 14(5): 713-741.
[28]Engle RW, Kane MJ, Tuholski SW. Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In Miyake A, Shah P (Eds.), Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999: 102-134.
[29]Baddeley AD. Exploring the central executive. Q J Exp Psychol. 1996, 49A: 5-28.
[30] Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, et al. The unity and diversity of executive function and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogniti Psychol. 2000, 41(1): 49-100.
[31]Stuss DT, Shallice T, Alexander MP, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional functions. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1995, 769(2): 191-211.
[32] Miyake A, Shah P. Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[33]Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophysics. 1974, 16(1): 143-149
[34] Sternberg S. Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of pure and composite measures to reveal them. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2001 ,106(1-2):147-246.
[35] Schumacher EH, Esposito MD. Neurol implementation of response selection in humans as revealed by localized effects of stimulus-response compatibility on brain activation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002, 17(3): 193-201
[36] Veen W, Carter CS. The anterior cingulated as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERPs studies. Physiol Behav. 2002, 77(4-5): 477-482.
[37] Qiu J, Lou YJ, Wang QH, et al. Brain mechanism of Stroop interference effect in Chinese characters. Brain Research. 2006, 1072(1): 186-193.
[38] Park HJ, Kwon JS, Youn T, et al. Statistical prametric mapping of LORETA using high density EEG and individual MRI: application to mismatch negativities in schizophrenia. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002, 17(3): 168-178
[39] Baltes PB, Lindenberger U. Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive function across the adult life span: A new window to the study of cognitive aging? Psychology Aging. 1997, 12(1):12-21
[40] McDowd JM, Shaw RJ. Attention and aging: a functional perspective. In: Craik F I M, Salthouse TA (Eds.), the handbook of aging and cognition (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Wawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 221-292
[41] Mayr U, Spieler DH, Kliegl R. Introduction. In: Mayr U, Spieler D, Kliegl R (Eds.). Aging and executive control. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2001.1-4
[42] Raz N. Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance: Integration of structural and functional findings. In: Craik FIM, Salthouse TA(Eds.). The hankbook of aging and cognition (2nd Eds.)Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000:1-90
[43] Raz N. The aging brain observed in vivo: differential changes and their modifiers. In. Cabeza R, Nyberg L, Park DC (Eds.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging: Linking Cognitive and Cerebral Aging. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[44] 杨文俊.大脑高级功能的神经电生理,第一版。北京:中国科学技术出版社,1998:87-88
[45] Van't ED. Perceptual and motor contributions to performance and ERPs components after incorrect motor activation in a flanker reaction task. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002,113(2): 270-283.
[46] Pritchard WS, Shappell SA, Brandt ME. Psychophysiololgy of N200/N400: a review and classification scheme. Adv Phychophysiol. 1991, 4(1): 43-106
[47] Sams M, Paavilainen P, Alho K, et al. Auditory frequency discrimination and event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr. Clin Neurophysiol. 1985,62(6): 437-448
[48] Naatanen R. The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behv Brain Sci. 1990, 13(2): 201-288.
[49]Mathewson KJ., Dywan J, Segalowitz SJ. Brain bases of error-related ERPss as influenced by age and task .Bio Psychol. 2005, 70(2):88-104.
[50]Ullsperger M, Cramon YV. Subprocesses of performance monitoring: a dissociation of error processing and response competition revealed by event-related fMRI and ERPss. Neuroimage. 2001,14(6): 1387-1401.
[51]Hakwan L,Robert D, Rogers, et al. Dissociating response selection and conflict in the medial frontal surface. Neuroimage. 2006, 29(2): 446-451.
[52]Bune SA, Hazelting E, Scanion MD. Dissociable contributions of prefrontal and parietal cortices to response selection. Neuroimage. 2002, 17(3): 1526-1571.
[53]Cabeza, R., Daselaar, S. M., Dolcos, F., Prince, S. E., Budde, M, & Nyberg, L. Task-independent and task-specific age effects on brain activity during working memory, visual attention, and episodic retrieval. Cerebral Cortex. 2004,14(4): 364-375.
[54]Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J. Evoked potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science. 1965,150(700): 1187-1188.
[55]Ilan AB, Polich J. P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999,110(2): 367-373.
[56]Duncan-Johnson, C.C., Kopell BS. The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. Science. 1981,214(4523):938-940.
[57]Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A. Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev. 1990,97(2): 253-270.
[58]Polich J. Meta-analysis of P300 normative aging studies. Psychophysiology. 1996, 33(4): 334-353.
[59]Botvinik M, Nystrom LE, Fissell K et al. Conflict monitoring versus selection for action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature. 1999,402(6758): 179-181.
[60] Carter CS, Macdonald AM, Botvinik M et al. Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulated cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97(4): 1944-1948.
[61]Veen VV, Holroyd CB, Cohen JD, et al. Errors without conflict: implications for performance moitoring theories o fanterior cingulated cortex. Brain Cogn. 2004, 56(2): 267-276.
[62] Carter CS, Mintun M, Cohen JD. Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: an H2150 PET study of Stroop task performance. Neuroimage. 1995,2(4): 264-272.
[63] Bush G, Whalen PJ, Rosen BR, et al. The counting Stroop: an interference task specialized for function neuroimaging-validation study with functional MRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 1998,6(4): 270-282.
[64] Zeki SM, Watson JDG, Lueck CJ, et al. A direct demonstration of functional specialization in human visual cortex. J Neurosci. 1991,11 (3): 641-649.
[65] Ronald C. Aging, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia. 2000, 18(7): 789-805.
[66] Petersen RC, Stevens JC, Ganguli M, et al. Practive parameter: Early detection of dementia: Mild cognitive impairment(an evidence-based review). Neurology. 2001, 56(9): 1133-1142.
[67] Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh E. "Mini-Mental State": a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiat Res. 1975, 12(3): 189-198.
[68] Morris JC. The clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993, 43(12): 2412-2414.
[69] “临床记忆量表”编制协作组.临床记忆量表手册.中国科学院心理研究所编印,1996年6月.
[70] Zhang X, Wang Y, Li S, et al.Early detection of cognitive impairment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: an event-related potential study. Neurosci-Lett. 2002, 325(2): 99-102.
[71] Wang H, Wang Y, Wang D, et al. Cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease revealed by event-related potential N270. J Neurol Sci. 2002, 194(1): 49-53.
[72] Rosano C, Aizeinstain H, Cochran J, et al. Event-related fMRI investigation of executive in mild cognitive impairment. Society for Neuroscience Abstract Viewer and Itinerary Planner. 2003, 296(1): 17.
[73] Kuats M. Augmenting mental chronometry. The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation. Science. 1971, 197(4305): 192-195.
[74] Duncan-Johnson CC, Kopell BS. The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. Science. 1981,214(4527):938-940.