Abstract

The functional organization of working memory (WM) in the human prefrontal cortex remains unclear. Storage and processing functions might be segregated in ventral and dorsal areas of the prefrontal cortex, respectively. If so, storage functions might be spared, irrespective of informational domain, following damage or dysfunction in dorsolateral areas. Alternatively, WM and prefrontal function in general might be segregated according to informational domains (e.g. spatial versus object-based information). In the present study we used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to directly test these competing hypotheses. We applied rTMS to transiently and selectively disrupt the function of the dorsomedial, dorsolateral or ventral prefrontal cortex in normal human volunteers performing either a spatial or a face-recognition delayed-response task. Performance in the spatial task was impaired by rTMS of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. Performance in the face-recognition (non-spatial) task was impaired by rTMS of the ventral prefrontal cortex. Transient disruption of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affected performance in both tasks. These findings provide evidence of domain-specific segregation of WM functions in widely separated areas of prefrontal cortex.

Introduction

The role of the prefrontal cortex in higher cognitive functions, particularly in different kinds of memory (declarative, nondeclarative and working memory) is uncertain [for reviews see (Squire and Zola, 1996; Wheeler et al., 1997; Smith and Jonides, 1999)]. The nature of prefrontal function (Luria, 1966; Baddeley, 1986) and the anatomical segregation of prefrontal cortex with respect to various cognitive functions (Fulton and Jacobson, 1935; Johnson et al., 1968; Goldman and Rosvold, 1970; Milner, 1971; Goldman-Rakic, 1987) remain topics of debate. Information processing in the prefrontal cortex could be segregated by virtue of the cognitive function performed by different brain regions or by virtue of the nature of the stimuli processed. In keeping with the former view, a model has been proposed based on convergent evidence of several lesion studies in non-human primates (Petrides, 1994). This model is supported by some lesion (Petrides and Milner, 1982; Owen et al., 1990, 1995) and neuroimaging studies in humans (Petrides et al., 1993; Owen et al., 1996a). The model proposes two executive processing systems within the lateral frontal cortex: the middle portion of the ventrolateral frontal cortex (Brodmann areas 45 and 47) (Brodmann, 1909) serves as one level of interaction between short-term and long-term memory systems and executive processing, while the mid-dorsolateral frontal cortex (Brodmann area 9 and 46) is assumed to constitute another level of interaction of executive processes with memory, and is recruited only when active manipulation and monitoring of information within working memory (WM) is required. Implicit in this model is the notion of being applicable irrespective of stimulus type.

On the other hand, other lesion [e.g. (Goldman and Rosvold, 1970)] and single-cell recording studies [e.g. (Funahashi et al., 1989)] of non-human primates have provided strong evidence that a dorsolateral region incorporating parts of Walker's areas 46 and 8 (Walker, 1940) are highly specialized for information processing of stimuli presented in a spatial context (Funahashi et al., 1989; Fuster, 1989). In contrast to these findings in dorsolateral areas, comparable studies of Walker's areas 12 and 45 on the inferior prefrontal convexity in monkeys have revealed an area in which neurons respond selectively to pictures of objects presented at the fovea but are much less responsive or completely unresponsive to spatial stimuli (Wilson et al., 1993; O'Scalaidhe et al., 1999). Lesions of inferior prefrontal areas in monkeys have often resulted in deficits on object discrimination reversal, object learning set and other nonspatial WM tasks [for a review see (Goldman-Rakic, 1987)]. These findings in nonhuman primates argue for a similar segregation of processing domains within the human prefrontal cortex such that the processing of spatial stimuli would take place in dorsal prefrontal regions while face stimuli would be processed in ventral prefrontal areas. Such a model would interface well with the organization of the visual system in a ‘what’ (i.e. intrinsic object information) and a ‘where’ (i.e. spatial information) processing stream (Ungerleider and Haxby, 1994; Haxby et al., 2000). A comparative cytoarchitectonic analysis in the human (Brodmann areas) and the macaque brain (Walker areas) suggests a partition of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex into three distinct regions (9, 9/46 and 46) to be able to integrate findings from functional neuroimaging studies in human subjects and experimental work in the monkey (Petrides and Pandya, 1999). Walker's areas 12 and 45 in the monkey correspond to Brodmann's areas 45 and 47 in the human. However, to date, sound evidence that might support this domain-specific hypothesis in humans has been scarce. Functional neuroimaging studies (Courtney et al., 1998; Haxby et al., 2000) have localized in humans a ‘face area’ in the frontal inferior prefrontal cortex homologous in location to that described by O'Scalaidhe and co-workers in the monkey (O'Scalaidhe et al., 1999). Tasks of spatial WM have consistently activated more dorsal regions corresponding to the middle frontal gyrus [for a review see (Smith and Jonides, 1999)]. However, many studies have failed to dissociate spatial and nonspatial processes for a variety of reasons, in part due to task design and in part due to the spatial resolution of the methods used (Goldman-Rakic, 2000). The segregation of prefrontal function in humans might reflect specializations for the modality of the stimuli to be processed (spatial or object), but could be interpreted to represent a modality-independent specialization for different cognitive processes (Owen et al., 1996b; Petrides, 1996; Smith and Jonides, 1999).

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether segregation of areas within the prefrontal cortex involved in a WM task for faces or spatial locations can be demonstrated using the ‘virtual lesion’ potential of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) [for a review see (Pascual-Leone et al., 1999)]. The feasibility of this ‘virtual lesion’ approach in memory studies has recently been demonstrated by using the combination of rTMS and PET. rTMS can induce blood flow changes at the stimulation site and in functionally connected brain regions that correlate with performance deterioration in a two-back working memory task (Mottaghy et al., 2000). Previous studies have revealed the possibility of disrupting WM for spatial information during rTMS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Pascual-Leone and Hallett, 1994; Robertson et al., 2001).

Methods

Subjects

Eight right-handed male individuals (mean age 30.4 ± 4.0 years; range 26–37 years) were studied after they gave written informed consent to the study that had been approved by the local institutional review board. None of the subjects had any neurologic, psychiatric or medical history, nor had any contraindications to rTMS (Wassermann, 1998).

Design

A delayed WM (dWM) paradigm was explored (Levy and Goldman-Rakic, 1999). Subjects were randomly presented either with a dWM trial for spatial locations or a dWM trial for unfamiliar faces. In the spatial dWM task white dots (diameter 2.4 cm) on a black screen (80 cm in front of the subjects) at 20 different locations with respect to a fixation cross at the center of the screen (maximum visual angle 11°) were presented. In the face dWM task captions (diameter 2.4 cm) of black-and-white images taken from the local student population were presented at the center of the screen, which was 80 cm in front of the subjects (visual angle ~1°). The trials were grouped into blocks of 30 trials, each containing 15 spatial dWM trials and 15 dWM trials for faces in random order. The duration of one block was ~4.5 min. Subjects individually paced the time between the dWM trials. Altogether we used 45 different spatial dWM trials and 45 different dWM trials for faces. Following the dWM tasks used in non-human primates (Levy and Goldman-Rakic, 1999), the subjects were initially presented with three stimuli in successive order. Each stimulus was presented for 300 ms and the interstimulus interval (ISI) was 150 ms. After a random delay period, of 2, 3 or 4 s, a target stimulus appeared and the subject had to respond on a computer keyboard by pressing two different keys (‘n’ and ‘m’), whether this target stimulus was part of the initial triad or not (Fig. 1a). The random delay period was chosen to increase the attentional demands of the task and to avoid automatic responses. In a pilot study we tested different memory sets of 1–4 items. The error rate with memory sets of one or two items was negligible, whereas those with four items were too difficult, with a large number of random responses. Therefore we decided to use a three-item memory set. Subjects were instructed to use the index finger for the negative response (‘n’) and the middle finger for the affirmative response (‘m’). During the ISI and the delay period a fixation cross was presented at the center of the screen to minimize eye movements. Within the 45 different dWM tasks for each stimulus type there were 15 for each delay period (2, 3 or 4 s). Each set of 15 trials contained three trials each where the first, second or third stimulus presented matched the target stimulus, together with six trials with no match. The program used for the presentation of the stimuli and the recording of the responses was SuperLab pro 1.71 for Macintosh (Cedrus Corp., San Pedro, CA). A pilot experiment was performed in a group of nine male subjects (27.4 ± 7.2 years) to determine the rate of learning effect to be expected in the two different dWM tasks. In this pilot experiment five consecutive blocks consisting of 15 trials for each stimulus type were presented (Fig. 2). We designed the rTMS study based on the results of this pilot experiment, which showed no significant learning effect in relation to accuracy after the second set of 15 trials for each stimulus type. The subjects were presented first with two blocks of dWM trials to get acquainted to the task, and then three blocks were recorded to establish an individual baseline. Thereafter, a 10 min 1 Hz rTMS train was applied over any of three different locations within the left prefrontal cortex. Immediately thereafter the subjects had to perform three more blocks of the dWM task (Fig. 1a).

The different locations within the left prefrontal cortex were stimulated on three different sessions at least 1 week apart. In each session, subjects received rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), the ventral prefrontal cortex (VPFC) or the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC). Eight subjects participated on all three sessions. None of the subjects showed adverse side effects. The order of locations was pseudorandomized and counterbalanced across subjects. Stimulation was applied to the left prefrontal cortex following the results of a recent study that found no significant hemispheric differences for dWM activity with spatial stimuli, but the most significant difference for dWM for faces versus spatial stimuli in the left inferior prefrontal cortex (Courtney et al., 1998).

TMS

A tightly fitting Lycra swimming cap was placed on the subject's head in order to mark the sites for TMS. TMS was applied using a Magstim Super Rapid (Magstim Company Ltd, Whitland, UK) and an 8-shaped coil in which each wing measured 70 mm in diameter. Surface electrodes were placed on the right first dorsal interosseus muscle (FDI) and a round ground electrode was placed on the wrist and connected to a Dantec counterpoint electromyograph (Dantec, Skovlunde, Denmark). The optimal scalp site, i.e. the scalp position from which TMS induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of maximal amplitude in the contralateral FDI was determined. The resting motor threshold (RMT) was defined for each subject as the minimal intensity of stimulator output capable of inducing MEPs > 50 μV peak-to-peak amplitude in at least six out of 10 consecutive trials. For this purpose, TMS was applied in single pulses with an ISI of at least 7 s in order to avoid ‘carry-over’ effects. The coil was held flat on the scalp with the handle pointing caudally, perpendicular to the midsagittal line.

During each session subjects received a 1 Hz rTMS train at 90% RMT over the DLPFC, the VPFC or the DMPFC. Each train consisted of 600 pulses and lasted 10 min. These rTMS parameters are well within currently recommended guidelines (Wassermann, 1998). Repetitive TMS was applied at 1 Hz because such parameters have been shown to result in a relative inhibition of the excitability of the targeted cortical region for several minutes following completion of the rTMS train (Chen et al., 1997; Boroojerdi et al., 2000; Muellbacher et al., 2000). The stimulation points (DLPFC, VPFC or DMPFC) were referred to the optimal scalp site for evoking MEPs in the FDI. The DLPFC stimulation site was marked 5 cm anterior to the reference point on a line parallel to the midsagittal line. The VPFC stimulation site was defined by going 4 cm ventral from this point along a perpendicular line to the midsagittal line. The DMPFC was determined going 2 cm mediodorsally along the same perpendicular line to the midsagittal line. For the rTMS train the coil was centered over the three marked points with the handle of the coil pointing caudally, perpendicular to the midsagittal line.

In five of the eight subjects we obtained a 3D-MPRAGE magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan (160 sagittal slices 1 mm apart and an inplane resolution of 256 × 256 mm2) of their brain after the experiment. Vitamin E capsules were placed on the previously marked positions (primary motor cortex, DMPFC, DLPFC and VPFC) as well as Cz of the 10–20 EEG electrode system and the nasion, inion and bilateral tragus. The actual location of the TMS coil position on the scalp with respect to the frontal gyri was then assessed using MRIcro (Chris Rorden, UK Version 1.23). In all five subjects, we found that, as applied, the TMS scalp positions had indeed targeted the superior frontal sulcus (DMPFC), the middle frontal gyrus (and DLPFC) and the inferior frontal gyrus (VPFC). The interindividual variability of the anatomical targets was well within the presumed spatial resolution of the rTMS with the employed coil (1–1.5 cm; Fig. 1).

Analysis

The number of errors and the mean reaction time (RT) were calculated for each block of trials. The three baseline blocks before rTMS were collapsed to an overall baseline. The trials after the rTMS train were regarded as three different time points, given the likely transient effects of rTMS. RT was corrected individually with regard to the overall mean of each individual. To determine if there was a RT error rate trade-off, responses were correlated. It was found that there were no significant correlations across the conditions (all P > 0.05). RT and errors were then analyzed separately employing a 3 × 2 × 4 repeated-measures ANOVA [prefrontal site (3): DMPFC/DLPFC/VPFC; visual stimulus (2): spatial/faces; time (4): baseline/post-rTMS 1–3]. Furthermore, post hoc planned comparisons (LSD-test) were performed comparing each post-rTMS block to baseline.

Results

The overall RT across all conditions was 940 ± 13 ms (mean ± SEM). RTs for each stimulation site and condition are shown in Table 1. At baseline the mean RT was 937 ± 35 ms in spatial dWM and 967 ± 38 ms in faces dWM (not significantly different; d.f. = 23; t = 1.96; P = 0.09). The three-way ANOVA for RT was found to be not significant for the overall interaction between the conditions [F(6,63) = 0.417, P = 0.86). Error rates (Table 1) were then compared. The overall error rate was 15.3% (2.3 errors in 15 trials ± 0.11). The mean number of errors at baseline across the three different stimulation sites was 1.99 ± 0.22 for the spatial dWM task and 2.04 ± 0.21 for the face stimuli, which was not significantly different (d.f. = 23; t = 0.22; P = 0.83; Fig. 2). Employing a 3 × 2 × 4 ANOVA (see Analysis), an overall significant interaction was found [F(6,63) = 4.46, P < 0.001].

Spatial delayed working memory task

The error rate for spatial dWM in the first block after rTMS to the DMPFC was significantly larger than at baseline [F(1,21) = 6.41, P < 0.01], whereas error rates in the two other blocks after rTMS were not significantly different from baseline (post-rTMS 2 and 3).

Following rTMS to the DLPFC, there was also a significant increase in error rate for the spatial dWM task between baseline and the first block of trials [post-rTMS 1; F(1,21) = 16.01, P < 0.0006]. The other two blocks of spatial dWM trials after the rTMS train to the DLPFC (post-rTMS 2 and 3) showed no significant differences with regard to the baseline.

Finally, following rTMS to the VPFC, there was no significant difference between baseline and any of the blocks after rTMS for the spatial dWM trials (post-rTMS 1, 2 or 3; all P > 0.05).

Faces delayed working memory task

For the faces dWM task, repetitive TMS to the DLPFC resulted in a significant increase in error rates from baseline in the first block [post-rTMS 1; F(1,21) = 5.70, P < 0.03]. Error rates in the other two blocks of trials (post-rTMS 2 and 3) did not differ significantly from baseline.

The increase in errors between baseline and post-rTMS 1 was also significant following rTMS to the VPFC [F(1,21) = 10.84, P < 0.0034]. Also in this case, error rates in the post-rTMS 2 and 3 blocks did not differ significantly from baseline (Fig. 2).

Finally, error rates were not increased by rTMS to the DMPFC in any of the post-rTMS blocks as compared with baseline.

Prefrontal site of rTMS

The analysis of the effects of rTMS to the DMPFC [F(1,21) = 0.88, P = 0.36] and DLPFC depending on spatial versus face stimuli revealed no significant differences [F(1,21) = 1.72, P = 0.2]. However, there were significant differences in the effects of rTMS on spatial and face stimuli following rTMS to the VPFC [F(1,21) = 6.97, P < 0.02].

Discussion

The results of this study show that human working memory functions follow a dorso-spatial/ventro-object axis, as predicted by single-cell recording, imaging and lesion experiments (Fuster and Alexander, 1971; Funahashi et al., 1989; Wilson et al., 1993; Goldman-Rakic, 1995; O'Scalaidhe et al., 1999; Petrides and Pandya, 1999; Haxby et al., 2000).

It is clear from our results that there is a domain-specific functional segregation in the human prefrontal cortex. Stimulation to one site affects spatial information-based but not face-based WM, while the opposite effect can be noted when rTMS is applied to a different site. However, there is no precise knowledge about the spatial resolution of rTMS, and therefore it is difficult to convert the functional segregation shown into anatomical segregation. Mapping studies within the motor or visual cortex using single-pulse TMS have argued a spatial resolution of ~0.5–1 cm at the scalp surface [for reviews see (Jahanshahi and Rothwell, 2000; Walsh and Cowey, 2000)]. However, during a prolonged train of rTMS, the spread of the effects along cortico-cortical connections may well lead to less focal effects (Pascual-Leone et al., 1994). Furthermore, several studies using combinations of TMS and different neuroimaging methods (Fox et al., 1997; Ilmoniemi et al., 1997; Paus et al., 1997, 1998) have demonstrated that TMS can exert, in addition to local effects in the directly targeted cortex, trans-synaptic effects onto functionally connected brain regions. Whether such trans-synaptic distant effects are behaviorally relevant is unclear. Regardless, it seems reasonable to consider that TMS affects a blurry volume in which the effects of the TMS tail off (similar to a Gaussian distribution) over an area of ~4–6 cm2. This would mean that there is no or only marginal overlap of the functional lesions induced by rTMS over the DMPFC and the VPFC. The DLPFC ‘virtual lesion’ might disrupt two adjacent domain-specific separate areas like the ones observed in monkey (Wilson et al., 1993) (Fig. 3a).

On the other hand, it is also possible that the performance deterioration observed for both types of stimuli after applying rTMS over the DLPFC site could be explained by interference with a common WM module within the middle frontal gyrus, i.e. the DLPFC stimulation site (Fig. 3b). This interpretation would combine the two ideas of a functional and a modality-specific segregation within the prefrontal cortex. Such a situation would fit with the findings in non-human primates [e.g. (Wilson et al., 1993)] showing different neurons being involved for spatial versus object processing, and also with various neuroimaging studies in humans demonstrating a comparable segregation [e.g. (McCarthy et al., 1996; Belger et al., 1998)]. On the other hand, such a situation would also explain other neuroimaging studies proposing a segregation by function (storage, maintenance) independent of the modality (Petrides, 1994; Owen et al., 1996a). Other nonhuman primate studies described a rather high degree of overlap of neurons processing object (‘what’) or spatial (‘where’) information throughout the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (Rao et al., 1997; Rainer et al., 1998). Our results demonstrate modality specificity, but they do not rule out interactions between the different WM network in the prefrontal cortex and may demonstrate effective supramodal mechanisms in the DLPFC.

Another issue that has been broadly discussed is that of hemispheric specialization for different kinds of stimuli. Some studies have suggested that spatial information held in short-term memory is processed in dorsal areas of the right prefrontal cortex [for a review see (Smith and Jonides, 1999)], whereas others attribute bilateral dorsal areas around the superior frontal sulcus, including parts of the middle frontal gyrus to spatial WM (Belger et al., 1998; Courtney et al., 1998). For faces, on the other hand, there is evidence for a lateralization to the left (Courtney et al., 1998; Haxby et al., 2000). As mentioned earlier, we designed our study according to these latter findings and decided to stimulate the left rather than the right prefrontal cortex in order to differentiate the contributions of the different cortical regions to the two different WM tasks within one hemisphere.

Several studies have demonstrated a delay of memorized saccades by TMS (Priori et al., 1993; Muri et al., 1996, 2000). Single-pulse TMS applied over the supplementary motor cortex (BA6) of either hemisphere is capable of delaying the execution of memorized saccades but not of non-delayed saccades (Muri et al., 2000). However, in this experiment, as in previous experiments (Priori et al., 1993; Muri et al., 1996), a nonfocal round TMS coil was used and it is not possible to say to what extent BA6, the frontal eye field or adjacent areas like BA9 are stimulated (Muri et al., 2000). Given our previous assumption of the extent of the ‘virtual lesion’, the effect of accuracy deterioration in the spatial dWM task after rTMS to the DMPFC in our study could be explained by interference with processes within the frontal eye field, but the DLPFC stimulation should then have no or only a very slight effect due to its distance from the frontal eye field. Furthermore, in the saccade studies there was an effect on speed rather than on accuracy, and our results did not show any significant reaction time delay after the DMPFC stimulation. Recently it was demonstrated that there is a specialized area for spatial WM in the vicinity of the frontal eye field lying within/around the superior frontal sulcus and distinguishable from activations during saccadic eye movements (Courtney et al., 1998). An important methodological observation of our study is the duration of the transient effect of the dWM impairment after the rTMS train. The study design employed, testing task performance before and following modulation of cortical excitability by rTMS, prevents non-specific disruptive effects of the rTMS train itself (Pascual-Leone et al., 1999). However, the question of the duration of the modulatory effects of rTMS is critical. In the motor system, monitoring of the amplitude of motor-evoked potentials allows objective assessment. In this case, the decrease in cortico-spinal excitability after an rTMS train lasted up to half the time of the train itself in one study (Chen et al., 1997) and persisted for twice the time of the train in another study (Muellbacher et al., 2000). In the visual cortex the excitability was decreased for at least 10 min after a 15 min train (Boroojerdi et al., 2000). However, the return to the baseline performance in our study was observed within 5 min after the end of the 10 min rTMS train. One explanation for this could be that the effect we observed is not due to a pure rTMS interference on the task, but is the result of rTMS on a possibly still persistent learning effect. However, in a pilot study we demonstrated that after 30 trials of the dWM task (i.e. two blocks in our design) there was only a marginal learning effect in the consecutive three blocks for each stimulus type. This strengthens our findings immediately after rTMS and underlines the assumption that the rTMS effect might already be washed out after 5 min. Yet, by the careful analysis of our findings after the rTMS train, it is obvious that there is a slight learning effect over the three post-rTMS trials in the four conditions where rTMS impaired the dWM performance, but not in the face dWM task after DMPFC rTMS or the spatial dWM task after VLPFC rTMS. Future studies using rTMS to evaluate the functional contributions of a specific brain area to a cognitive process should be carefully designed with respect to the anticipated duration of the effect of the rTMS train, taking into consideration the complexity of the task itself.

In summary, our data support the idea of modality-specific processing within the prefrontal cortex. The fact that the accuracy was impaired for both types of stimulus after rTMS over the middle frontal gyrus is compatible with two different interpretations (Fig. 3a,b) that would require additional experiments for resolution.

Notes

We thank Julian P. Keenan for advice on statistical analysis, and Stephen Kosslyn, Albert Galaburda and Patricia Goldman-Rakic for insightful comments on the study design and critical reading of the manuscript. Supported in part by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (RO1MH60734, RO1MH57980) and the National Eye Institute (RO1EY12091), and a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to F.M.M. (DFG MO 871/3-1).

Table 1

RT and number of errors (errors) out of the 15 trials per block of the delayed working memory task for spatial or face stimuli at the four different time points (baseline: base; post-rTMS 1–3)

 DMPFC DLPFC VPFC 
 RT ± SE (ms) Errors ± SE (out of 15 trials) RT ± SE Errors ± SE RT ± SE Errors ± SE 
For RT there was no significant difference across sessions (stimulation sites: DMPFC, DLPFC and VPFC) and time points, whereas the number of errors was significantly affected depending on the stimulation site and the time points (see Fig. 2). 
Spatial       
    Base 931 ± 64 1.58 ± 0.31 951 ± 56 2.21 ± 0.33 929 ± 68 2.17 ± 0.35 
    Post-rTMS 1 1021 ± 99 2.88 ± 0.48 974 ± 57 4.25 ± 0.59 892 ± 55 2.00 ± 0.42 
    Post-rTMS 2 942 ± 57 1.63 ± 0.32 937 ± 47 2.13 ± 0.61 885 ± 60 2.38 ± 0.50 
    Post-rTMS 3 918 ± 66 1.00 ± 0.27 905 ± 41 1.63 ± 0.38 911 ± 69 1.75 ± 0.41 
Face       
    Base 982 ± 71 2.00 ± 0.47 978 ± 64 2.17 ± 0.39 943 ± 69 1.96 ± 0.26 
    Post-rTMS 1 1064 ± 87 2.25 ± 0.53 990 ± 71 3.38 ± 0.50 936 ± 66 3.63 ± 0.56 
    Post-rTMS 2 973 ± 64 2.50 ± 0.50 938 ± 47 2.50 ± 0.46 924 ± 74 2.25 ± 0.53 
    Post-rTMS 3 874 ± 54 1.88 ± 0.69 900 ± 91 2.00 ± 0.46 920 ± 74 1.25 ± 0.37 
 DMPFC DLPFC VPFC 
 RT ± SE (ms) Errors ± SE (out of 15 trials) RT ± SE Errors ± SE RT ± SE Errors ± SE 
For RT there was no significant difference across sessions (stimulation sites: DMPFC, DLPFC and VPFC) and time points, whereas the number of errors was significantly affected depending on the stimulation site and the time points (see Fig. 2). 
Spatial       
    Base 931 ± 64 1.58 ± 0.31 951 ± 56 2.21 ± 0.33 929 ± 68 2.17 ± 0.35 
    Post-rTMS 1 1021 ± 99 2.88 ± 0.48 974 ± 57 4.25 ± 0.59 892 ± 55 2.00 ± 0.42 
    Post-rTMS 2 942 ± 57 1.63 ± 0.32 937 ± 47 2.13 ± 0.61 885 ± 60 2.38 ± 0.50 
    Post-rTMS 3 918 ± 66 1.00 ± 0.27 905 ± 41 1.63 ± 0.38 911 ± 69 1.75 ± 0.41 
Face       
    Base 982 ± 71 2.00 ± 0.47 978 ± 64 2.17 ± 0.39 943 ± 69 1.96 ± 0.26 
    Post-rTMS 1 1064 ± 87 2.25 ± 0.53 990 ± 71 3.38 ± 0.50 936 ± 66 3.63 ± 0.56 
    Post-rTMS 2 973 ± 64 2.50 ± 0.50 938 ± 47 2.50 ± 0.46 924 ± 74 2.25 ± 0.53 
    Post-rTMS 3 874 ± 54 1.88 ± 0.69 900 ± 91 2.00 ± 0.46 920 ± 74 1.25 ± 0.37 
Figure 1.

(a) In the first row the design of the delayed working memory task for spatial or face stimuli is shown. The delay period between the set of three stimuli, which were consecutively presented (300 ms each with an ISI of 150 ms), and the target stimuli was randomized between 2, 3 or 4 s. Subjects had to respond with the index (‘no’) or middle (‘yes') finger pressing two different keys, deciding whether the target stimulus was within the set of the previously presented stimuli or not. In the second row the experimental set up is sketched (details in the text). (b) Positioning of the coil over the left DMPFC (Dm) DLPFC (Dl) and VPFC (V) was confirmed using a 3-D MRI sequence with vitamin E capsules in place.

Figure 1.

(a) In the first row the design of the delayed working memory task for spatial or face stimuli is shown. The delay period between the set of three stimuli, which were consecutively presented (300 ms each with an ISI of 150 ms), and the target stimuli was randomized between 2, 3 or 4 s. Subjects had to respond with the index (‘no’) or middle (‘yes') finger pressing two different keys, deciding whether the target stimulus was within the set of the previously presented stimuli or not. In the second row the experimental set up is sketched (details in the text). (b) Positioning of the coil over the left DMPFC (Dm) DLPFC (Dl) and VPFC (V) was confirmed using a 3-D MRI sequence with vitamin E capsules in place.

Figure 2.

The mean performance rates in percent, with error bars indicating the SEM, are displayed for each stimulation site (Dm = DMPFC; Dl = DLPFC; V = VLPFC), each stimulus type (spatial; faces) and the four different time points (base = baseline; post1 = immediately after rTMS; post2 = 5 min after rTMS; post3 = 10 min after rTMS). **A significant decrease in performance (P < 0.05) after rTMS. One rendered brain with the corresponding points is displayed to demonstrate the locations. Other marked feducial points were the hand spot in the primary motor cortex (M), the bilateral tragus (T), the inion and the nasion (N).

Figure 2.

The mean performance rates in percent, with error bars indicating the SEM, are displayed for each stimulation site (Dm = DMPFC; Dl = DLPFC; V = VLPFC), each stimulus type (spatial; faces) and the four different time points (base = baseline; post1 = immediately after rTMS; post2 = 5 min after rTMS; post3 = 10 min after rTMS). **A significant decrease in performance (P < 0.05) after rTMS. One rendered brain with the corresponding points is displayed to demonstrate the locations. Other marked feducial points were the hand spot in the primary motor cortex (M), the bilateral tragus (T), the inion and the nasion (N).

Figure 3.

Two alternative models based on our data can be proposed. (a) There might be two different, non-overlapping functionally segregated regions within the prefrontal cortex that are domain specific (S = spatial domain; F = face domain). Repetitive TMS over the DMPFC interferes only with the processing of the spatial information. The DLPFC stimulation might have induced overlapping interference of two adjacent domain specific areas, whereas the VPFC led only to interference with the processing of the face stimuli. (b) The DMPFC and the VPFC interference effects can be explained in the same manner as in proposal (a); however, the performance deterioration over the DLPFC in this given model might be explained by the interference with information processing of a common module (C) that is employed during both types of stimulus.

Figure 3.

Two alternative models based on our data can be proposed. (a) There might be two different, non-overlapping functionally segregated regions within the prefrontal cortex that are domain specific (S = spatial domain; F = face domain). Repetitive TMS over the DMPFC interferes only with the processing of the spatial information. The DLPFC stimulation might have induced overlapping interference of two adjacent domain specific areas, whereas the VPFC led only to interference with the processing of the face stimuli. (b) The DMPFC and the VPFC interference effects can be explained in the same manner as in proposal (a); however, the performance deterioration over the DLPFC in this given model might be explained by the interference with information processing of a common module (C) that is employed during both types of stimulus.

References

Baddeley AD (1986) Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Belger A, Puce A, Krystal JH, Gore JC, Goldman-Rakic P, McCarthy G (
1998
) Dissociation of mnemonic and perceptual processes during spatial and nonspatial working memory using fMRI.
Hum Brain Mapp
 
6
:
14
–32.
Boroojerdi B, Prager A, Muellbacher W, Cohen LG (
2000
) Reduction of human visual cortex excitability using 1-Hz transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Neurology
 
54
:
1529
–1531.
Brodmann K (1909) Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre der Grosshirnrinde in ihren Prinzipiendargestellt auf Grund des Zellenbaus. Leipzig: Barth.
Chen R, Classen J, Gerloff C, Celnik P, Wassermann EM, Hallett M, Cohen LG (
1997
) Depression of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Neurology
 
48
:
1398
–1403.
Courtney SM, Petit L, Maisog JM, Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV (
1998
) An area specialized for spatial working memory in human frontal cortex.
Science
 
279
:
1347
–1351.
Fox P, Ingham R, George MS, Mayberg H, Ingham J, Roby J, Martin C, Jerabek P (
1997
) Imaging human intra-cerebral connectivity by PET during TMS.
NeuroReport
 
8
:
2787
–2791.
Fulton JF, Jacobsen CF (1935) Fonctions des lobes frontaux; etude comparee chez l’homme et les singes chimpanzes. In Proceedings of the International Neurological Congress, London, p. 552.
Funahashi S, Bruce CJ, Goldman-Rakic PS (
1989
) Mnemonic coding of visual space in the monkey's dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
J Neurophysiol
 
61
:
331
–349.
Fuster JM (1989) The prefrontal cortex. New York: Raven Press.
Fuster JM, Alexander GE (
1971
) Neuron activity related to short-term memory.
Science
 
173
:
652
–654.
Goldman PS, Rosvold HE (
1970
) Localization of function within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the rhesus monkey.
Exp Neurol
 
27
:
291
–304.
Goldman-Rakic PS (1987) Circuitry of primate prefrontal cortex and regulation of behavior by representational memory. In Handbook of physiology: the nervous system, Vol. V. Higher functions of the brain (Plum F, ed.), pp. 373–417. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society.
Goldman-Rakic PS (
1995
) Architecture of the prefrontal cortex and the central executive.
Ann NY Acad Sci
 
769
:
71
–83.
Goldman-Rakic PS (
2000
) Localization of function all over again.
NeuroImage
 
11
:
451
–457.
Haxby JV, Petit L, Ungerleider LG, Courtney SM (
2000
) Distinguishing the functional roles of multiple regions in distributed neural systems for visual working memory.
NeuroImage
 
11
:
145
–156.
Ilmoniemi RJ, Virtanen J, Ruohonen J, Karhu J, Aronen HJ, Naatanen R, Katila T (
1997
) Neuronal responses to magnetic stimulation reveal cortical reactivity and connectivity.
NeuroReport
 
8
:
3537
–3542.
Jahanshahi M, Rothwell J (
2000
) Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies of cognition: an emerging field.
Exp Brain Res
 
131
:
1
–9.
Johnson TN, Rosvold HE, Mishkin M (
1968
) Projections from behaviorally-defined sectors of the prefrontal cortex to the basal ganglia, septum, and diencephalon of the monkey.
Exp Neurol
 
21
:
20
–34.
Levy R, Goldman-Rakic PS (
1999
) Association of storage and processing functions in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the nonhuman primate.
J Neurosci
 
19
:
5149
–158.
Luria AR (1966) Higher cortical functions in man. London: Tavistock.
McCarthy G, Puce A, Constable RT, Krystal JH, Gore JC, Goldman-Rakic PS (
1996
) Activation of human prefrontal cortex during spatial and nonspatial working memory tasks measured by functional MRI.
Cereb Cortex
 
6
:
600
–611.
Milner B (
1971
) Interhemispheric differences in the localization of psychological processes in man.
Br Med Bull
 
27
:
272
–277.
Mottaghy FM, Krause BJ, Kemna LJ, Topper R, Tellmann L, Beu M, Pascual-Leone A, Muller-Gartner HW (
2000
) Modulation of the neuronal circuitry subserving working memory in healthy human subjects by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Neurosci Lett
 
280
:
167
–170.
Muellbacher W, Ziemann U, Boroojerdi B, Hallett M (
2000
) Effects of low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor excitability and basic motor behavior.
Clin Neurophysiol
 
111
:
1002
–1007.
Muri RM, Vermersch AI, Rivaud S, Gaymard B, Pierrot-Deseilligny C (
1996
) Effects of single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices during memory-guided saccades in humans.
J Neurophysiol
 
76
:
2102
–2106.
Muri RM, Gaymard B, Rivaud S, Vermersch A, Hess CW, Pierrot-Deseilligny C. (
2000
) Hemispheric asymmetry in cortical control of memory-guided saccades. A transcranial magnetic stimulation study.
Neuropsychologia
 
38
:
1105
–1111.
O'Scalaidhe SP, Wilson FA, Goldman-Rakic PS (
1999
) Face-selective neurons during passive viewing and working memory performance of rhesus monkeys: evidence for intrinsic specialization of neuronal coding.
Cereb Cortex
 
9
:
459
–475.
Owen AM, Downes JJ, Sahakian BJ, Polkey CE, Robbins TW (
1990
) Planning and spatial working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man.
Neuropsychologia
 
28
:
1021
–1034.
Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, Semple J, Polkey CE, Robbins TW (
1995
) Visuo-spatial short-term recognition memory and learning after temporal lobe excisions, frontal lobe excisions or amygdalohippocampectomy in man.
Neuropsychologia
 
33
:
1
–24.
Owen AM, Evans AC, Petrides M (
1996
) 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.
Owen AM, Morris RG, Sahakian BJ, Polkey CE, Robbins TW (
1996
) Double dissociations of memory and executive functions in working memory tasks following frontal lobe excisions, temporal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man.
Brain
 
119
:
1597
–1615.
Pascual-Leone A, Hallett M (
1994
) Induction of errors in a delayed response task by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
NeuroReport
 
5
:
2517
–2520.
Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Sole J, Wassermann EM, Hallett M (
1994
) Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex.
Brain
 
117
:
847
–858.
Pascual-Leone A, Bartres-Faz D, Keenan JP (
1999
) Transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain-behaviour relationship by induction of ‘virtual lesions'.
Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
 
354
:
1229
–1238.
Paus T, Jech R, Thompson CJ, Comeau R, Peters T, Evans AC (
1997
) Transcranial magnetic stimulation during positron emission tomography: a new method for studying connectivity of the human cerebral cortex.
J Neurosci
 
17
:
3178
–184.
Paus T, Jech R, Thompson CJ, Comeau R, Peters T, Evans AC (
1998
) Dose-dependent reduction of cerebral blood flow during rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human sensorimotor cortex.
J Neurophysiol
 
79
:
1102
–1107.
Petrides M (
1994
) Frontal lobes and behaviour.
Curr Opin Neurobiol
 
4
:
207
–211.
Petrides M (
1996
) Specialized systems for the processing of mnemonic information within the primate frontal cortex.
Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
 
351
:
1455
–1461.
Petrides M, Milner B (
1982
) Deficits on subject-ordered tasks after frontal- and temporal-lobe lesions in man.
Neuropsychologia
 
20
:
249
–262.
Petrides M, Pandya DN (
1999
) Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: comparative cytoarchitectonic analysis in the human and the macaque brain and corticocortical connection patterns.
Eur J Neurosci
 
11
:
1011
–1036.
Petrides M, Alivisatos B, Evans AC, Meyer E (
1993
) Dissociation of human mid-dorsolateral from posterior dorsolateral frontal cortex in memory processing.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
 
90
:
873
–877.
Priori A, Bertolasi L, Rothwell JC, Day BL, Marsden CD (
1993
) Some saccadic eye movements can be delayed by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the cerebral cortex in man.
Brain
 
116
:
355
–367.
Rainer G, Asaad WF, Miller EK (
1998
) Selective representation of relevant information by neurons in the primate prefrontal cortex.
Nature
 
393
:
577
–579.
Rao SC, Rainer G, Miller EK (
1997
) Integration of what and where in the primate prefrontal cortex.
Science
 
276
:
821
–824.
Robertson EM, Tormos JM, Maeda F, Pascual-Leone A (
2001
) The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during sequence learning is specific for spatial information.
Cereb Cortex
 
11
:
628
–635.
Smith EE, Jonides J (
1999
) Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes.
Science
 
283
:
1657
–1661.
Squire LR, Zola SM (
1996
) Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
 
93
:
13515
–13522.
Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV (
1994
) ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain.
Curr Opin Neurobiol
 
4
:
157
–165.
Walker AE (
1940
) A cytoarchitectonical study of the prefrontal area of the macaque monkey.
J Comp Neurol
 
73
:
59
–86.
Walsh V, Cowey A (
2000
) Transcranial magnetic stimulation and cognitive neuroscience.
Nat Neurosci Rev
 
1
:
73
–79.
Wassermann EM (
1998
) Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5–7, 1996.
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol
 
108
:
1
–16.
Wheeler MA, Stuss DT, Tulving E (
1997
) Toward a theory of episodic memory: the frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness.
Psychol Bull
 
121
:
331
–354.
Wilson FA, O'Scalaidhe SP, Goldman-Rakic PS (
1993
) Dissociation of object and spatial processing domains in primate prefrontal cortex.
Science
 
260
:
1955
–1958.