ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2023
Influence of goals on modular brain network organization during working memory.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network Neuroscience of Human Multitasking: Local Connections Matter.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Predicting working memory efficiency across adulthood: the role of enhancement and suppression attentional mechanisms, moderated by age and other factors.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Top-down control underlies our ability to attend relevant stimuli while ignoring irrelevant, distracting stimuli and is a critical process for prioritizing information in working memory (WM). Prior work has demonstrated that top-down biasing signals modulate sensory-selective cortical areas during WM, and that the large-scale organization of the brain reconfigures due to WM demands alone; however, it is not yet understood how brain networks reconfigure between the processing of relevant versus irrelevant information in the service of WM. Methods: Here, we investigated the effects of task goals on brain network organization while participants performed a WM task that required participants to detect repetitions (e.g., 0-back or 1-back) and had varying levels of visual interference (e.g., distracting, irrelevant stimuli). We quantified changes in network modularity-a measure of brain sub-network segregation-that occurred depending on overall WM task difficulty as well as trial-level task goals for each stimulus during the task conditions (e.g., relevant or irrelevant). Results: First, we replicated prior work and found that whole-brain modularity was lower during the more demanding WM task conditions compared to a baseline condition. Further, during the WM conditions with varying task goals, brain modularity was selectively lower during goal-directed processing of task-relevant stimuli to be remembered for WM performance compared to processing of distracting, irrelevant stimuli. Follow-up analyses indicated that this effect of task goals was most pronounced in default mode and visual sub-networks. Finally, we examined the behavioral relevance of these changes in modularity and found that individuals with lower modularity for relevant trials had faster WM task performance. Discussion: These results suggest that brain networks can dynamically reconfigure to adopt a more integrated organization with greater communication between sub-networks that supports the goal-directed processing of relevant information and guides WM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.