Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Brief Communications

Dopamine D1 Binding Potential Predicts Fusiform BOLD Activity during Face-Recognition Performance

Bart Rypma, Håkan Fischer, Anna Rieckmann, Nicholas A. Hubbard, Lars Nyberg and Lars Bäckman
Journal of Neuroscience 4 November 2015, 35 (44) 14702-14707; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1298-15.2015
Bart Rypma
1School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Håkan Fischer
2Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna Rieckmann
3Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, SE-113 30 Stockholm, Sweden, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas A. Hubbard
1School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Nyberg
4Departments of Radiation Sciences and Integrative Medical Biology, Umeå Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Bäckman
3Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, SE-113 30 Stockholm, Sweden, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The importance of face memory in humans and primates is well established, but little is known about the neurotransmitter systems involved in face recognition. We tested the hypothesis that face recognition is linked to dopamine (DA) activity in fusiform gyrus (FFG). DA availability was assessed by measuring D1 binding potential (BP) during rest using PET. We further assessed blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal change while subjects performed a face-recognition task during fMRI scanning. There was a strong association between D1 BP and BOLD activity in FFG, whereas D1 BP in striatal and other extrastriatal regions were unrelated to neural activity in FFG. These results suggest that D1 BP locally modulates FFG function during face recognition. Observed relationships among D1 BP, BOLD activity, and face-recognition performance further suggest that D1 receptors place constraints on the responsiveness of FFG neurons.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The importance of face memory in humans and primates is well established, but little is known about the neurotransmitter systems involved in face recognition. Our work shows a role for a specific neurotransmitter system in face memory.

  • Dopamine
  • face recognition
  • FMRI
  • fusiform gyrus
  • multimodal imaging
  • PET

Introduction

Face processing is mediated by a dedicated functional anatomy (Haxby et al., 2000). Research has established a face-specific network that includes inferior occipital cortex (Gauthier et al., 2000) and fusiform gyrus (FFG; Sergent et al., 1992; Kanwisher et al., 1997) for processing invariant aspects of faces (Gobbini and Haxby, 2007). These regions interact with others (e.g., cingulate cortex, amygdala) to support operations such as new-face encoding, familiar-face recognition, and processing complex meaning in faces (Haxby et al., 2000). Although the neuroanatomy of episodic face recognition is well established, little is known about the neurotransmitter systems involved. Here, we tested the hypothesis that DA plays a principal role in face recognition by assessing associations between DA D1 binding potential (BP) in several brain regions and FFG blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) activity during face recognition.

Evidence from patient studies, animal research, pharmacologic challenges, specific genetic polymorphisms, and molecular PET and SPECT imaging studies implicate DA in multiple cognitive domains (Bäckman et al., 2006, 2010; Bäckman and Nyberg, 2013; Schultz, 2007a,b). Although most of this work has linked DA to working-memory performance (Williams and Goldman-Rakic, 1995; Luciana and Collins, 1997; Cohen et al., 2002; Cools et al., 2007; Dodds et al., 2009; Landau et al., 2009; Fischer et al., 2010; Cools and D'Esposito, 2011), PET research has associated DA with episodic-memory performance, including verbal and spatial recall, word recognition, and paired-associate learning (Bäckman et al., 2000; Erixon-Lindroth et al., 2005; Cervenka et al., 2008, 2010; Takahashi et al., 2008). Most PET studies linking DA to episodic memory have used markers of striatal and extrastriatal D2 receptor binding. Rodent work indicates that hippocampus D1-receptor activation during encoding is critical to establishing persistent episodic-like memories (Rossato et al., 2009; Bethus et al., 2010); however, there is little corresponding human research in episodic memory focused on D1 receptors.

Based on rodent pharmacoimaging, Knutson and Gibbs (2007) asserted that striatal DA D1 activity largely determines the magnitude of the BOLD signal. Similar human DA–BOLD links have been demonstrated using presynaptic DA markers and markers of D1 and D2 receptor binding during both working memory and episodic memory performance (Landau et al., 2009; Nyberg et al., 2009; Bäckman et al., 2011; Rieckmann et al., 2011a). Of relevance to the current study, Schott et al. (2008) observed associations between DA release and BOLD activity in ventral striatum during reward-related learning. Distributed DA-mediated reward circuitry is known to overlap with the face-specific network (Gurevich and Joyce, 1999; Martinezet al., 2003; Schultz, 2007a,b). One objective of the current study was to assess relationships between D1 receptor binding and BOLD activity in FFG during face recognition.

Evidence suggests a role for DA in episodic face recognition. Pharmacological data indicate that mesolimbic DA projections extend beyond hippocampus to parahippocampal regions including FFG (Tessitore et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2010). In one study (Kim et al., 2010), subjects underwent fMRI during categorization-task performance after taking either placebo or l-DOPA (a precursor to DA and other catecholamines). These investigators found l-DOPA-related activation increases in one face network region, FFG, suggesting that exogenous DA may modulate FFG BOLD activity. Other studies demonstrate that long-term potentiation mechanisms linked to episodic-memory formation depend on tonic DA-induced hippocampal activity that stimulates ventral tegmentum (VTA), promoting DA release in parahippocampal structures including FFG (Schultz, 2007a,b; Lisman et al., 2011).

We assessed whether DA plays a role in modulation of FFG BOLD activity during face recognition and if this modulation is related to face-recognition performance. We measured FFG D1 receptor BP using PET and BOLD using fMRI during face recognition. Discriminant validity of FFG D1–BOLD associations was examined by assessing relationships of D1 BP in striatal and extrastriatal regions to FFG BOLD signal amplitude. We further assessed the relationships between BP and BOLD in other face-specific regions (i.e., anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and inferior occipital gyrus). Finally, we examined relationships among FFG D1 BP, FFG BOLD, and face-recognition performance. Neurocomputational models (Li et al., 2001, 2010) suggest that increased neural signal gain with DA input yields more distinct memory representations and improved performance. Therefore, we tested whether the degree to which BOLD is modulated by D1 BP in FFG (i.e., the BOLD:DA ratio) predicts face-recognition performance.

Materials and Methods

Subjects.

Twenty right-handed subjects (ages 22–30 years, M = 25.2, SD = 2.2; 10 females) were recruited by local newspaper ads in the Stockholm metropolitan area. All participants reported that they were nonsmokers with no history of drug or alcohol abuse, significant neuropsychiatric disorders, or brain damage. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants and all procedures, including [11C] SCH23390 dosage levels, were approved by the Ethics and Radiation Safety Committees of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Two participants were excluded from subsequent analyses for behavioral accuracy that was >2.5 SDs below the sample mean (overall Maccuracy = 61%; outlier 1 Maccuracy = 14%; outlier 2 Maccuracy = 18%).

Procedure.

Participants first completed health and cognitive screening. They then underwent a PET measurement lasting 61 min to acquire data for D1 BP calculation. On a subsequent occasion, not >1 week after the PET scanning, subjects were shown 24 face pictures outside of the MR scanner and instructed to encode them for later retrieval. Approximately 24 min later, during fMRI scanning, subjects were shown the set of 24 previously encoded faces intermixed with a set of 24 new faces in a yes/no recognition test

fMRI task.

Before fMRI scanning, outside of the scanner, subjects were exposed to 24 faces (half male, half female) during an intentional encoding session with the instructions “You will now see a number of faces. Your task is to remember them for a later test.” Approximately 24 min after conclusion of intentional face encoding, subjects performed a face-recognition task during fMRI scanning. In this task, they alternated between sets of face-recognition trials and sets of sensorimotor button-press trials. During the sensorimotor trials, subjects pressed a button each time a cross-hair or circle appeared in the middle of the screen. On each face-recognition trial, a target or distractor face was presented for 2 s followed by a 500 ms intertrial interval during which a cross-hair appeared on the screen. Subjects pressed a forefinger-response button to indicate that they recognized the face from the previously encoded set and they pressed a right middle-finger button to indicate that they did not recognize the face. During the sensorimotor trials, the letter “x” or a circle was presented for 2 s every 0.5 s and subjects pressed a button with either finger when one of these target objects appeared.

There were eight face-recognition blocks and eight sensorimotor blocks. In each face-recognition block, subjects viewed six faces, half of which had been presented previously. On the sensorimotor blocks, subjects responded to the letter on half the trials and responded to the circle on half the trials. Each block took 15 s and there was an interblock interval of 1.25 s. The face-recognition and sensorimotor blocks were in turn grouped into two sets of four blocks each and presented in two separate runs. There were four dummy scans added at the beginning of each run to accommodate initial magnetization. Therefore, each run took 140 s and the entire procedure lasted ∼5 min including instructions.

fMRI scanning and BOLD analysis.

Whole-brain imaging data were acquired on a 1.5 TE Signa Echospeed MR-scanner (GE Medical Systems) using a standard circular 1-channel head coil. T1-weighted 3D-SPGR images (TR = 24 ms, TE = 6 ms, flip angle = 35°) were acquired for anatomical coregistration in 124 contiguous 1.5 mm coronal slices (image resolution = 256 mm × 256 mm × 186 mm, voxelsize = 0.9 mm × 0.9 mm × 1.5 mm). Functional images were acquired using a T2*-sensitive gradient-echo EPI sequence (TR = 2.5 s, TE = 40 ms, flip angle = 90°). The image volumes had a field of view of 220 mm × 220 mm, an in-plane resolution of 3.44 mm × 3.44 mm, and contained 32 horizontal, 4-mm-thick slices with a 0.5 mm gap in between each slice. All images were acquired interleaved. During the fMRI session, 104 image volumes were obtained across the two scanning runs. All data processing was performed using SPM2 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, UK). Functional images were first spatially realigned to the first volume in each time series. Inspection of movement parameters generated during the spatial realignment showed that no participant had moved >3 mm or 3° in any direction during task performance. Volumes were then normalized to a standard T1 template. Normalized images were spatially smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of 12 mm full-width at half-maximum. High-frequency noise was removed using a band-pass filter at 128 Hz. The hemodynamic response function acted as the low-pass filter.

Face-recognition versus sensorimotor BOLD effects were modeled using a box-car function convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function. Whole-brain analyses were performed using directional t tests of face-recognition versus sensorimotor periods. Average β values were then extracted from regions of interest (ROI), which comprised 4 mm radius spheres centered around peak activation (t-score) within anatomical brain regions of the WFU Pickatlas (Maldjian et al., 2003). Face-specific ROIs included anterior cingulate, amygdala, FFG, and inferior occipital gyrus.

PET scanning and DA D1 analysis.

PET data were collected on an ECAT Exact HR 47 system (Siemens) in 3D mode with trans-axial resolution of 3.8 mm full-width at half-maximum and a field of view of 4.5 mm radially 20 mm from center. Transmission measurements were collected over 10 min with 3 rotating 68Ge-68Ga sources. Then, 300 MBq of the [11C]SCH23390 radioligand was rapid-bolus injected into the left antecubital vein. Emission data were collected over the following 51 min in 13 time frames of increasing duration.

ROIs were manually delineated on each individual's T1-weighted image separately for each hemisphere using the Human Brain Atlas software (Roland et al., 1994). ROIs derived for subsequent analyses included: FFG, ventral striatum, caudate, putamen, hippocampus, amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, orbital frontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Rieckmann et al., 2011b). These regions were segmented into gray matter, white matter, and CSF to minimize partial-volume effects. Subsequent analyses with unilateral ROIs did not produce different results (i.e., DA–BOLD relationships); therefore, we aggregated unilateral ROIs across hemispheres.

BP calculation.

Time-activity curves (TACs) were calculated from the PET images. For TAC generation, radioactivity was plotted versus time and corrected for decay rate. D1 receptor availability was measured as the BP of the [11C]SCH23390 radioligand. BP is defined as the ratio at equilibrium of specifically bound radioligand to that of nondisplaceable radioligand in tissue (Innis et al., 2007) and calculated using the simplified reference tissue model with cerebellum as the reference region (Lammertsma and Hume, 1996) and corrected for partial-volume effects (Meltzer et al., 1990). Therefore, BP may be thought of as density of available D1 receptors indexed by the extent of radioligand occupancy of postsynaptic D1 receptors.

Results

BOLD activity in fusiform gyrus

BOLD signal contrast between the face-recognition and button-press tasks indicated suprathreshold voxels in FFG during face-recognition performance (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Illustration of bilateral fusiform BOLD activity during episodic face recognition compared with a sensorimotor control task. Threshold p-value = p < 0.001, uncorrected. BOLD activity data are restricted to the fusiform gyrus ROI.

D1–BOLD relationships

We tested whether D1 BP predicts BOLD signal variability in FFG during face recognition by performing a linear regression of FFG D1 BP estimates and their corresponding BOLD parameter estimates. The standardized correlation coefficient revealed a positive relationship between these variables (β = 0.62; R2 = 0.38, p < 0.007; Fig. 2; regression diagnostics did not identify any unduly influential data points; Belsley et al., 1980). No such relationships were observed in any other face-specific network regions (i.e., anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, inferior occipital gyrus; all p > 0.05).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Least-squares regression of fusiform D1 BP and fusiform BOLD activity.

To determine whether the relationship between FFG D1 BP and BOLD was unique to DA activity in FFG, we computed corresponding correlations for D1 BP in limbic (anterior cingulate, amygdala, hippocampus), striatal (ventral striatum, caudate, putamen), and prefrontal (e.g., orbito-, dorsolateral, medial) brain regions with FFG BOLD. None of these associations outside of FFG approached significance (all p > 0.10; Fig. 3).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Pearson product–moment correlations between D1 BP β and BOLD β in all brain regions examined. VST, ventral striatum; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; MPFC, medial prefrontal cortex; OFC, orbital frontal cortex; PC, parietal cortex. **p < 0.001.

Relationships to performance

Overall, d′ scores indicated that subjects performed well at the group level (M = 1.25; SD = 0.43). Among individuals with high d′ scores (i.e., those subjects whose face-recognition scores were above the median), most of their data points fell above the regression line in the DA-BOLD regression analysis suggesting that, for these subjects, there was greater BOLD activity relative to D1 receptor availability compared with low d′ performers (i.e., those subjects whose performance was below the median). Indeed, d′ was significantly related to individuals' residual scores (r = 0.49, p < 0.04). This relationship indicates that higher BOLD activity relative to D1 receptor availability was associated with better face recognition. It is worth noting that neither BOLD nor D1 receptor availability alone was associated with individual differences in performance (p > 0.05). These results are consistent with recent work on the physiological basis of the BOLD response, which suggests an important role for DA in modulation and the activation necessary for distinct memory representations and accurate performance (Knutson and Gibbs, 2007; Karlsson et al., 2009; Li et al., 2009, 2010). On this view, higher neural activity (as approximated with BOLD in the present study) is achieved with lower levels of neural input (as measured by D1 BP in the present study), resulting in better memory performance compared with the case in which the same high activation levels must be achieved with higher levels of neural input (Li et al., 2010)

We formally tested this relationship by first calculating the proportion of subjects' standardized BOLD β values relative to their standardized DA BP values (i.e., their BOLD/BP ratio). Figure 4 illustrates that this ratio significantly predicted face-recognition performance (β = 0.48, R2 = 0.23, p = 0.04). A Mahalanobis distance analysis identified two outliers in this analysis. These persons were discarded and a separate FFG BOLD:BP ratio model predicting d′ was run. This model was also significant (β = 0.57, R2 = 0.32, p = 0.02).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

BOLD–BP ratio prediction of face-recognition performance.

Discussion

We examined whether D1 BP predicts neural activity in FFG during episodic face recognition. A strong relationship between D1 BP and BOLD activity in FFG during face recognition was observed. This is the first demonstration of a role of D1 receptors in face recognition and the first to indicate a D1–BOLD association in FFG.

We observed a region-specific effect wherein D1 BP mediated FFG BOLD activity. This result is consistent with previous work on DA-BOLD links in striatal and associated midbrain regions and their anterior extensions to prefrontal cortex (Schott et al., 2008; Landau et al., 2009; Nyberg et al., 2009; Bäckman et al., 2010; Cools and D'Esposito, 2011; Rieckmann et al., 2011a). Such results are thought to reflect a social cognition network for processing emotional and reward-related information conveyed in face stimuli (cf. Siessmeier et al., 2006; Schultz, 2007a,b). Similarly, relationships that we observed between D1 BPs in ventral striatum and anterior cingulate with FFG BOLD, whereas not significant, were probably not trivial. Further research is needed to assess the extent to which distal modulation of FFG can occur during face-recognition processing. The present findings do, however, show that DA affects posterior regions by local modulation of BOLD activity (cf. Jabbi et al., 2013). These results occurred, despite the nearly fivefold reduction in D1 receptors compared with the striatum (Rieckmann et al., 2011b). This link between FFG D1 BP and BOLD suggests that dopamine can act locally to influence face-specific regions within a social cognition network.

The specific D1–BOLD association in FFG might reflect the neural demands of the face-recognition task that participants were engaged in during BOLD imaging. Face recognition is known to depend upon FFG function (Kanwisher et al., 1997; Henson et al., 2000). Tasks emphasizing other aspects of face processing (e.g., attractiveness) might elicit D1 BP-BOLD associations in other face-relevant regions (Schultz, 2007a,b). Further research is needed to fully understand the region-specific nature of the associations observed here.

How might DA function at the FFG site to modulate the BOLD response during face recognition? In the mesolimbic DA system, cell bodies extending from VTA to temporal lobe structures as far as FFG might synthesize DA for downstream function during face processing. Similar to DA mechanisms that have been illustrated in midbrain (Knutson and Gibbs, 2007), local DA FFG neurons could function by a process wherein, in response to face-recognition demands, local DA release activates postsynaptic D1 receptors, changing their polarity and increasing their metabolic activity, thereby giving rise to local increases in BOLD activity (Zonta et al., 2003; Hutchison et al., 2013; Hubbard et al., 2015). This metabolic activity, in turn, could stimulate astrocytic mechanisms that mediate neurovascular interactions, which give rise to the BOLD signal. This mechanism is known to lead to expansion of local vascular lumen, as well as increased cerebral blood flow and velocity (Takano et al., 2006; Rossi, 2006). Subsequently, presynaptic DA transporters reuptake unbound DA leading to reversal of postsynaptic polarities, reductions in FFG neural activity, and the accompanying BOLD response (Knutson and Gibbs, 2007). Therefore, the mechanism whereby DA modulates BOLD activity by constraining postsynaptic neural responsiveness in distributed cortical regions such as FFG might resemble its modulatory influences during adaptive cognition (see Schultz, 2007a,b).

DA is a diverse neurotransmitter the functions of which range from somatomotor coordination (Carlsson et al., 1958; Schultz et al., 1989) to motivational (Faure et al., 2005), reward-learning (Schott et al., 2008), and cognitive (Williams and Goldman-Rakic, 1995; Inase et al., 1997; Fallon and Cools, 2014) functions (Schultz, 2007a,b). Such functional diversity might be undergirded by reward timing in brain regions critical to the task at hand. Isomorphism between face and reward processing has been suggested by studies demonstrating attractiveness-related variability in face-network regions such as amygdala, which is highly responsive to both attractive and disfigured faces (Kampe et al., 2001; Aharon et al., 2001; Senior, 2003; Liang et al., 2010). Therefore, although D1 BP is associated with FFG BOLD in episodic face recognition in general, it might be linked to neural activity in amygdala and other reward-related regions in processing facial attractiveness.

Our data support the hypothesis that D1 BP modulates BOLD activity by placing constraints on the responsiveness of postsynaptic neurons (Choi et al., 2006; Knutson and Gibbs, 2007). However, they do not rule out other possible mechanisms through which BOLD activity constrains DA activity. For example, similar to mechanisms posited in striatum (Bäckman and Nyberg, 2013), the BOLD response in FFG could modulate DA activity by phasically inhibiting GABAergic neurons. In this view, increased DA activity results from, rather than leads to, increased FFG BOLD activity. A third possibility is that DA and BOLD activity mutually influence one another through the mechanisms discussed above. Finally, we cannot rule out a role for serotonin in this context insofar as its postsynaptic availability is also reflected in the affinity of SCH23390 (Ekelund et al., 2007). However, for several reasons, such potential influences are likely to be negligible (Andersen et al., 1992; Rieckmann et al., 2011b).

We observed higher face-recognition performance for individuals who showed greater BOLD response relative to their DA availability (i.e., those with a higher BOLD–BP ratio). Conversely, those with low BOLD responses relative to DA availability performed less accurately. Similar to prefrontal activity during working memory, subjects for whom higher BOLD activation is attained with lower levels of DA neural input achieve higher gains in the sigmoidal function relating DA input to activation (Li et al., 2001; Li et al., 2010). As has been shown with behavioral associations, larger gain should yield higher neural signal relative to background noise, more distinct memory representations, and higher memory performance (Li and Sikström, 2002; Li et al., 2009). Conversely, subjects for whom higher BOLD activity can only be reached with high levels of DA input should achieve lower gains, less distinct memory representations, and reduced memory performance (Li et al., 2010; Nyberg et al., 2012).

In sum, strong regional associations between D1 BP and BOLD activity in FFG were observed, whereas D1 BP in striatal and other extrastriatal regions were unrelated to BOLD activity in FFG. These results suggest that D1 BP modulates neural function in FFG during face recognition. Relationships among DA, BOLD activity, and performance further suggest that the extent to which DA availability drives FFG neural activity is linked to face-recognition accuracy.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by the University of Texas at Dallas Faculty Development Leave Program, the National Institutes of Health (Grants R01AG029523 and R01AG047972 to B.R.); the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, Swedish Brain Power, an Alexander von Humboldt Research Award, and a donation from the af Jochnick Foundation (L.B. and H.F.), and the Torsten and Ragnar Söderberg's Foundation (L.B. and L.N.). Significant technical and conceptual portions of this work were completed while B.R. was in residence at the Aging Research Center of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. We thank Saranya Sundaram, Brooke Gomez, and Monroe Turner for technical support.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Bart Rypma, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Green Hall, GR41, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080. bart.rypma{at}utdallas.edu

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aharon I,
    2. Etcoff N,
    3. Ariely D,
    4. Chabris CF,
    5. O'Connor E,
    6. Breiter HC
    (2001) Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 32:537–551, doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00491-3, pmid:11709163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Andersen PH,
    2. Grønvald FC,
    3. Hohlweg R,
    4. Hansen LB,
    5. Guddal E,
    6. Braestrup C,
    7. Nielsen EB
    (1992) NNC-112, NNC-687 and NNC-756, new selective and highly potent dopamine D1 receptor antagonists. Eur J Pharmacol 219:45–52, doi:10.1016/0014-2999(92)90578-R, pmid:1397049.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bäckman L,
    2. Nyberg L
    (2013) Dopamine and training-related working-memory improvement. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:2209–2219, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.014, pmid:23333266.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Bäckman L,
    2. Karlsson S,
    3. Fischer H,
    4. Karlsson P,
    5. Brehmer Y,
    6. Rieckmann A,
    7. MacDonald SW,
    8. Farde L,
    9. Nyberg L
    (2011) Dopamine D1 receptors and age differences in brain activation during working memory. Neurobiol Aging 32:1849–1856, doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.10.018, pmid:19962789.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bäckman L,
    2. Small BJ,
    3. Wahlin Å,
    4. Larsson M
    (2000) in The handbook of aging and cognition, Cognitive functioning in very old age, eds Craik FIM, Salthouse SA (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), Ed 2, pp 499–558.
  6. ↵
    1. Bäckman L,
    2. Nyberg L,
    3. Lindenberger U,
    4. Li SC,
    5. Farde L
    (2006) The correlative triad among aging, dopamine, and cognition: current status and future prospects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:791–807, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.005, pmid:16901542.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bäckman L,
    2. Lindenberger U,
    3. Li SC,
    4. Nyberg L
    (2010) Linking cognitive aging to alterations in dopamine neurotransmitter functioning: recent data and future avenues. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:670–677, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.12.008, pmid:20026186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Belsley DA,
    2. Kuh E,
    3. Welsch RE
    (1980) Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).
  9. ↵
    1. Bethus I,
    2. Tse D,
    3. Morris RG
    (2010) Dopamine and memory: Modulation of the persistence of memory for novel hippocampal NMDA receptor-dependent paired associates. J Neurosci 30:1610–1618, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2721-09.2010, pmid:20130171.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Carlsson A,
    2. Waldeck B
    (1958) A fluorimetric method for the determination of dopamine (3-hydroxytyramine). Acta Physiol Scand 44:293–298, doi:10.1111/j.1748-1716.1958.tb01628.x, pmid:13617024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Cervenka S,
    2. Bäckman L,
    3. Cselényi Z,
    4. Halldin C,
    5. Farde L
    (2008) Associations between dopamine D2-receptor binding and cognitive performance indicate functional compartmentalization of the human striatum. Neuroimage 40:1287–1295, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.063, pmid:18296072.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Cervenka S,
    2. Varrone A,
    3. Fransén E,
    4. Halldin C,
    5. Farde L
    (2010) PET studies of D2-receptor binding in striatal and extrastriatal brain regions: Biochemical support in vivo for separate dopaminergic systems in humans. Synapse 64:478–485, doi:10.1002/syn.20765, pmid:20175222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Choi JK,
    2. Chen YI,
    3. Hamel E,
    4. Jenkins BG
    (2006) Brain hemodynamic changes mediated by dopamine receptors: Role of the cerebral microvasculature in dopamine-mediated neurovascular coupling. Neuroimage 30:700–712, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.029, pmid:16459104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Cohen JD,
    2. Braver TS,
    3. Brown JW
    (2002) Computational perspectives on dopamine function in prefrontal cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 12:223–229, doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(02)00314-8, pmid:12015241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Cools R,
    2. Sheridan M,
    3. Jacobs E,
    4. D'Esposito M
    (2007) Impulsive personality predicts dopamine-dependent changes in frontostriatal activity during component processes of working memory. J Neurosci 27:5506–5514, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0601-07.2007, pmid:17507572.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Cools R,
    2. D'Esposito M
    (2011) Inverted-U-shaped dopamine actions on human working memory and cognitive control. Biol Psychiatry 69:e113–e125, doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.03.028, pmid:21531388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Dodds CM,
    2. Clark L,
    3. Dove A,
    4. Regenthal R,
    5. Baumann F,
    6. Bullmore E,
    7. Robbins TW,
    8. Müller U
    (2009) The dopamine D2 receptor antagonist sulpiride modulates striatal BOLD signal during the manipulation of information in working memory. Psychopharmacology 207:35–45, doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1634-0, pmid:19672580.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Ekelund J,
    2. Slifstein M,
    3. Narendran R,
    4. Guillin O,
    5. Belani H,
    6. Guo NN,
    7. Hwang Y,
    8. Hwang DR,
    9. Abi-Dargham A,
    10. Laruelle M
    (2007) In vivo DA D(1) receptor selectivity of NNC 112 and SCH 23390. Mol Imaging Biol 9:117–125, doi:10.1007/s11307-007-0077-4, pmid:17473957.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Erixon-Lindroth N,
    2. Farde L,
    3. Wahlin TB,
    4. Sovago J,
    5. Halldin C,
    6. Bäckman L
    (2005) The role of the striatal dopamine transporter in cognitive aging. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 138:1–12, doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2004.09.005, pmid:15708296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Fallon SJ,
    2. Cools R
    (2014) Reward acts on the pFC to enhance distractor resistance of working memory representations. J Cogn Neurosci 26:2812–2826, doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00676, pmid:24893740.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Faure A,
    2. Haberland U,
    3. Condé F,
    4. El Massioui N
    (2005) Lesion to the nigrostriatal dopamine system disrupts stimulus-response habit formation. J Neurosci 25:2771–2780, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3894-04.2005, pmid:15772337.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Fischer H,
    2. Nyberg L,
    3. Karlsson S,
    4. Karlsson P,
    5. Brehmer Y,
    6. Rieckmann A,
    7. MacDonald SW,
    8. Farde L,
    9. Bäckman L
    (2010) Simulating neurocognitive aging: effects of a dopaminergic antagonsit on brain activity during working memory. Biol Psychiatry 67:575–580, doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.12.013, pmid:20138255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Gauthier I,
    2. Tarr MJ,
    3. Moylan J,
    4. Skudlarski P,
    5. Gore JC,
    6. Anderson AW
    (2000) The fusiform “face area” is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. J Cogn Neurosci 12:495–504, doi:10.1162/089892900562165, pmid:10931774.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Gobbini MI,
    2. Haxby JV
    (2007) Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia 45:32–41, doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.04.015, pmid:16797608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Gurevich EV,
    2. Joyce JN
    (1999) Distribution of dopamine D3 receptor expressing neurons in the human forebrain: comparison with D2 receptor expressing neurons. Neuropsychopharmacology 20:60–80, doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00066-9, pmid:9885786.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Haxby JV,
    2. Hoffman EA,
    3. Gobbini MI
    (2000) The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn Neurosci 4:223–233, doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01482-0, pmid:10827445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Henson R,
    2. Shallice T,
    3. Dolan R
    (2000) Neuroimaging evidence for dissociable forms of repetition priming. Science 287:1269–1272, doi:10.1126/science.287.5456.1269, pmid:10678834.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Hubbard NA,
    2. Turner M,
    3. Hutchison JL,
    4. Ouyang A,
    5. Strain J,
    6. Oasay L,
    7. Sundaram S,
    8. Davis SL,
    9. Remington G,
    10. Brigante RM,
    11. Huang H,
    12. Hart J Jr.,
    13. Frohman TC,
    14. Frohman E,
    15. Biswal BB,
    16. Rypma B
    (2015) Multiple sclerosis-related white matter microstructural change alters the BOLD hemodynamic response. J Cereb Blood Flow and Metab, in press.
  29. ↵
    1. Hutchison JL,
    2. Lu H,
    3. Rypma B
    (2013) Neural mechanisms of age-related slowing: the ΔCBF/ΔCMRO2 ratio mediates age-differences in BOLD signal and human performance. Cereb Cortex 23:2337–2346, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs233, pmid:22879349.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Inase M,
    2. Li BM,
    3. Tanji J
    (1997) Dopaminergic modulation of neuronal activity in the monkey putamen through D1 and D2 receptors during a delayed Go/Nogo task. Exp Brain Res 117:207–218, doi:10.1007/s002210050217, pmid:9419068.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Innis RB,
    2. Cunningham VJ,
    3. Delforge J,
    4. Fujita M,
    5. Gjedde A,
    6. Gunn RN,
    7. Holden J,
    8. Houle S,
    9. Huang SC,
    10. Ichise M,
    11. Iida H,
    12. Ito H,
    13. Kimura Y,
    14. Koeppe RA,
    15. Knudsen GM,
    16. Knuuti J,
    17. Lammertsma AA,
    18. Laruelle M,
    19. Logan J,
    20. Maguire RP,
    21. Mintun MA,
    22. Morris ED,
    23. Parsey R,
    24. Price JC,
    25. Slifstein M,
    26. Sossi V,
    27. Suhara T,
    28. Votaw JR,
    29. Wong DF,
    30. Carson RE
    (2007) Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 27:1533–1539, doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600493, pmid:17519979.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Jabbi M,
    2. Nash T,
    3. Kohn P,
    4. Ianni A,
    5. Rubinstein D,
    6. Holroyd T,
    7. Carver FW,
    8. Masdeu JC,
    9. Kippenhan JS,
    10. Robinson SE,
    11. Coppola R,
    12. Berman KF
    (2013) Midbrain presynaptic dopamine tone predicts sustained and transient neural response to emotional salience in humans: fMRI, MEG and FDOPA PET. Mol Psychiatry 18:4–6, doi:10.1038/mp.2012.12, pmid:22411228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Kampe KK,
    2. Frith CD,
    3. Dolan RJ,
    4. Frith U
    (2001) Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature 413:589, doi:10.1038/35098149, pmid:11595937.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Kanwisher N,
    2. McDermott J,
    3. Chun MM
    (1997) The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci 17:4302–4311, pmid:9151747.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Karlsson S,
    2. Nyberg L,
    3. Karlsson P,
    4. Fischer H,
    5. Thilers P,
    6. Macdonald S,
    7. Brehmer Y,
    8. Rieckmann A,
    9. Halldin C,
    10. Farde L,
    11. Backman L
    (2009) Modulation of striatal dopamine D1 binding by cognitive processing. Neuroimage 48:398–404, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.030, pmid:19539768.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Kim N,
    2. Goel PK,
    3. Tivarus ME,
    4. Hillier A,
    5. Beversdorf DQ
    (2010) Independent component analysis of the effect of L-dopa on fMRI of language processing. PLoS One 5:e11933, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011933, pmid:20808963.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Knutson B,
    2. Gibbs SE
    (2007) Linking nucleus accumbens dopamine and blood oxygenation. Psychopharmacology 191:813–822, doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0686-7, pmid:17279377.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Lammertsma AA,
    2. Hume SP
    (1996) Simplified reference tissue model for PET studies. Neuroimage 4:153–158, doi:10.1006/nimg.1996.0066, pmid:9345505.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Landau SM,
    2. Lal R,
    3. O'Neil JP,
    4. Baker S,
    5. Jagust WJ
    (2009) Striatal dopamine and working memory. Cereb Cortex 19:445–454, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn095, pmid:18550595.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Liang X,
    2. Zebrowitz LA,
    3. Zhang Y
    (2010) Neural activation in the “reward circuit” shows a nonlinear response to facial attractiveness. Soc Neurosci 5:320–334, doi:10.1080/17470911003619916, pmid:20221946.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Li SC,
    2. Lindenberger U,
    3. Bäckman L
    (2010) Dopaminergic modulation of cognition across the life span. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:625–630, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.02.003, pmid:20152855.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Li SC,
    2. Lindenberger U,
    3. Sikström S
    (2001) Aging cognition: From neuromodulation to representation to cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 5:479–486, doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01769-1, pmid:11684480.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Li SC,
    2. Sikström S
    (2002) Integrative neurocomputational perspectives on cognitive aging, neuromodulation, and representation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 26:795–808, doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(02)00066-0, pmid:12470691.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Li SC,
    2. Lindenberger U,
    3. Nyberg L,
    4. Heekeren HR,
    5. Bäckman L
    (2009) in Imaging the aging brain, Dopaminergic modulation of cognition in human aging, eds Jagust W, D'Esposito M (OUP, New York), pp 71–91.
  45. ↵
    1. Lisman J,
    2. Grace AA,
    3. Duzel E
    (2011) A neohebbian framework for episodic memory; role of dopamine dependent late LTP. Trends Neurosci 34:536–547, doi:10.1016/j.tins.2011.07.006, pmid:21851992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Luciana M,
    2. Collins PF
    (1997) Dopaminergic modulation of working memory for spatial but not object cues in normal humans. J Cogn Neurosci 9:330–347, doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.3.330, pmid:23965011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Maldjian JA,
    2. Laurienti PJ,
    3. Kraft RA,
    4. Burdette JH
    (2003) An automated method for neuroanatomical and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. Neuroimage 19:1233–1239, doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00169-1, pmid:12880848.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Martinez D,
    2. Slifstein M,
    3. Broft A,
    4. Mawlawi O,
    5. Hwang DR,
    6. Huang Y,
    7. Cooper T,
    8. Kegeles L,
    9. Zarahn E,
    10. Abi-Dargham A,
    11. Haber SN,
    12. Laruelle M
    (2003) Imaging human mesolimbic dopamine transmission with positron emission tomography: Amphetamine-induced dopamine release in the functional subdivisions of the striatum. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 23:285–300, pmid:12621304.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Meltzer CC,
    2. Leal JP,
    3. Mayberg HS,
    4. Wagner HN Jr.,
    5. Frost JJ
    (1990) Correction of PET data for partial volume effects in human cerebral cortex by MR imaging. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 14:561–570, doi:10.1097/00004728-199007000-00011, pmid:2370355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Nyberg L,
    2. Lövdén M,
    3. Riklund K,
    4. Lindenberger U,
    5. Bäckman L
    (2012) Memory aging and brain maintenance. Trends Cogn Sci 16:292–305, doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.005, pmid:22542563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Nyberg L,
    2. Andersson M,
    3. Forsgren L,
    4. Jakobsson-Mo S,
    5. Larsson A,
    6. Marklund P,
    7. Nilsson LG,
    8. Riklund K,
    9. Bäckman L
    (2009) Striatal dopamine D2 binding is related to fronal BOLD response during updating of long-term memory representations. Neuroimage 46:1194–1199, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.035, pmid:19327403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Rieckmann A,
    2. Karlsson S,
    3. Fischer H,
    4. Bäckman L
    (2011a) Caudate dopamine D1 receptor density is associated with individual differences in fronto-parietal connectivity during working memory. J Neurosci 31:14284–14290, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3114-11.2011, pmid:21976513.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Rieckmann A,
    2. Karlsson S,
    3. Karlsson P,
    4. Brehmer Y,
    5. Fischer H,
    6. Farde L,
    7. Nyberg L,
    8. Bäckman L
    (2011b) Dopamine D1 receptor associations within and between dopaminergic pathways in younger and elderly adults: links to cognitive performance. Cereb Cortex 21:2023–2032, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq266, pmid:21258043.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Roland PE,
    2. Graufelds CJ,
    3. W Hlin J,
    4. Ingelman L,
    5. Andersson M,
    6. Ledberg A,
    7. Pedersen J,
    8. Akerman S,
    9. Dabringhaus A,
    10. Zilles K
    (1994) Human brain atlas: For high-resolution functional and anatomical mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 1:173–184, doi:10.1002/hbm.460010303, pmid:24578038.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Rossato JI,
    2. Bevilaqua LR,
    3. Izquierdo I,
    4. Medina JH,
    5. Cammarota M
    (2009) Dopamine controls persistence of long-term memory storage. Science 325:1017–1020, doi:10.1126/science.1172545, pmid:19696353.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Rossi DJ
    (2006) Another BOLD role for astrocytes: Coupling blood flow to neural activity. Nat Neurosci 9:159–161, doi:10.1038/nn0206-159, pmid:16439980.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Schott BH,
    2. Minuzzi L,
    3. Krebs RM,
    4. Elmenhorst D,
    5. Lang M,
    6. Winz OH,
    7. Seidenbecher CI,
    8. Coenen HH,
    9. Heinze HJ,
    10. Zilles K,
    11. Düzel E,
    12. Bauer A
    (2008) Mesolimbic fMRI activations during reward anticipation correlate with reward-related ventral striatal dopamine release. J Neurosci 28:14311–14319, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2058-08.2008, pmid:19109512.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Schultz W
    (2007a) Behavioral dopamine signals. Trends Neurosci 30:203–210, doi:10.1016/j.tins.2007.03.007, pmid:17400301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Schultz W
    (2007b) Multiple dopamine functions at different time courses. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:259–288, doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135722, pmid:17600522.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Schultz W,
    2. Romo R,
    3. Scarnati E,
    4. Sundström E,
    5. Jonsson G,
    6. Studer A
    (1989) Saccadic reaction times, eye-arm coordination and spontaneous eye movements in normal and MPTP-treated monkeys. Exp Brain Res 78:253–267, doi:10.1007/BF00228897, pmid:2599036.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Senior C
    (2003) Beauty in the brain of the beholder. Neuron 38:525–528, doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00293-9, pmid:12765605.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Sergent J,
    2. Ohta S,
    3. MacDonald B
    (1992) Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing: a positron emission tomography study. Brain 115:15–36, doi:10.1093/brain/115.1.15, pmid:1559150.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Siessmeier T,
    2. Kienast T,
    3. Wrase J,
    4. Larsen JL,
    5. Braus DF,
    6. Smolka MN,
    7. Buchholz HG,
    8. Schreckenberger M,
    9. Rösch F,
    10. Cumming P,
    11. Mann K,
    12. Bartenstein P,
    13. Heinz A
    (2006) Net influx of plasma 6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA (FDOPA) to the ventral striatum correlates with prefrontal processing of affective stimuli. Eur J Neurosci 24:305–313, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04903.x, pmid:16882026.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Takahashi H,
    2. Kato M,
    3. Takano H,
    4. Arakawa R,
    5. Okumura M,
    6. Otsuka T,
    7. Kodaka F,
    8. Hayashi M,
    9. Okubo Y,
    10. Ito H,
    11. Suhara T
    (2008) Differential contributions of prefrontal and hippocampal dopamine D-1 and D-2 receptors in human cognitive functions. J Neurosci 28:12032–12038, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3446-08.2008, pmid:19005068.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Takano T,
    2. Tian GF,
    3. Peng W,
    4. Lou N,
    5. Libionka W,
    6. Han X,
    7. Nedergaard M
    (2006) Astrocyte-mediated control of cerebral blood flow. Nat Neurosci 9:260–267, doi:10.1038/nn1623, pmid:16388306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Tessitore A,
    2. Hariri AR,
    3. Fera F,
    4. Smith WG,
    5. Chase TN,
    6. Hyde TM,
    7. Weinberger DR,
    8. Mattay VS
    (2002) Dopamine modulates the response of the human amygdala: a study in Parkinson's disease. J Neurosci 22:9099–9103, pmid:12388617.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Williams GV,
    2. Goldman-Rakic PS
    (1995) Modulation of memory fields by dopamine D1 receptors in prefrontal cortex. Nature 376:572–575, doi:10.1038/376572a0, pmid:7637804.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Zonta M,
    2. Angulo MC,
    3. Gobbo S,
    4. Rosengarten B,
    5. Hossman KA,
    6. Pozzan T,
    7. Carmignoto G
    (2003) Neuron-to-astrocyte signaling is central to the dynamic control of brain microcirculation. Nat Neurosci 6:43–50, doi:10.1038/nn980, pmid:12469126.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 35 (44)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 35, Issue 44
4 Nov 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Dopamine D1 Binding Potential Predicts Fusiform BOLD Activity during Face-Recognition Performance
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Dopamine D1 Binding Potential Predicts Fusiform BOLD Activity during Face-Recognition Performance
Bart Rypma, Håkan Fischer, Anna Rieckmann, Nicholas A. Hubbard, Lars Nyberg, Lars Bäckman
Journal of Neuroscience 4 November 2015, 35 (44) 14702-14707; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1298-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Dopamine D1 Binding Potential Predicts Fusiform BOLD Activity during Face-Recognition Performance
Bart Rypma, Håkan Fischer, Anna Rieckmann, Nicholas A. Hubbard, Lars Nyberg, Lars Bäckman
Journal of Neuroscience 4 November 2015, 35 (44) 14702-14707; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1298-15.2015
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • dopamine
  • face recognition
  • fMRI
  • fusiform gyrus
  • multimodal imaging
  • PET

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

  • The "weak evidence" argument is unfounded and highlights strength of DA-BOLD link
    Bart Rypma
    Published on: 31 January 2016
  • Weak evidence for a link between dopamine D1 binding potential and fusiform BOLD activity
    Guillaume A. Rousselet
    Published on: 19 November 2015
  • Published on: (31 January 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for The "weak evidence" argument is unfounded and highlights strength of DA-BOLD link
    The "weak evidence" argument is unfounded and highlights strength of DA-BOLD link
    • Bart Rypma, Professor of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Professor of Psychiatry
    • Other Contributors:
      • Nicholas A. Hubbard, Anna Rieckmann, Hakan Fischer, Lars Nyberg, Lars Backman

    We appreciate the interest in our work by the author of the "weakness of evidence" comment. Further, we also thank the commenter for allowing us the opportunity to revisit the strength of our evidence. The commenter suggests that inappropriate statistical analyses were used in this study and that there were undue influences from outliers on the association between fusiform gyrus BOLD and D1 binding potential (BP) reported...

    Show More

    We appreciate the interest in our work by the author of the "weakness of evidence" comment. Further, we also thank the commenter for allowing us the opportunity to revisit the strength of our evidence. The commenter suggests that inappropriate statistical analyses were used in this study and that there were undue influences from outliers on the association between fusiform gyrus BOLD and D1 binding potential (BP) reported in our study, as described in the article entitled Dopamine D1 Binding Potential Predicts Fusiform BOLD Activity during Face-Recognition Performance. Although the commenter argues that the use of his or her recommended statistical methods are more appropriate than those utilized in our study, the commenter fails to give evidence to demonstrate this assertion. Here we give a point-by-point response to the "weakness of evidence" argument. We conclude that the commenter's argument hinges upon misleading assertions. In fact, the contention that our results were in some way "weak" does not stand when using the commenter's suggested methods.

    We do agree with the commenter that use of large sample sizes is optimal for drawing the most accurate conclusions about natural phenomena. Our sample size was not large (N = 18); although we confidently liken this size to many other studies within multimodal imaging research. We are also confident in the robustness of the D1-BOLD relationship we obtained, given the large proportion of shared variance we demonstrated between these two variables (see Cohen, 1988).

    The commenter claimed that our original ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model had "overfit" our data. The commenter used leave-one-out cross-validation modeling to which he or she suggested that the use of this modeling technique showed a subjectively marked change in model fit between FFG D1 binding potential (BP) and BOLD. There are at least two problems with the commenter's approach and interpretation. The first and most obvious is that cross-validation modeling is not appropriate in this case because we are neither attempting to fit contending models nor are we assessing models for their ability to extrapolate to novel data. Second, if one were to use this approach, as the commenter did, one would see that the commenter's claim of a "weak" association between D1 BP and FFG BOLD is conventionally unfounded (e.g., Cohen, 1982). The model that the commenter used showed a subjectively reduced fit compared to our original model (i.e., r2 = .38 to r2 = ".20"). However, the commenter mistakenly elides over the fact that the effect size of his or her model is neither trivial nor weak (i.e., it is at least a medium effect size; see Cohen, 1988).

    The commenter's suggestion to use a Spearman's rho is not supported given that the original, parametric model is not affected by potential outliers (see below). It is also important to note the commenter's calculation error of Spearman's rho (.0939). The actual value of this calculation is .3891.

    Although our original work showed that possible outliers did not have any influence on the FFG D1 BP and BOLD model (see manuscript p. 14704), the commenter insinuated that the outlier detection methods used in our paper were antiquated. When he or she used "modern outlier detection techniques," these, the commenter claims, revealed several bivariate outliers. Although the commenter did not provide any context for his or her insinuation that our methods are antiquated, we must point out that several multivariate outlier methods and point influence diagnostics show that our model was not unduly affected by anomalous observations. First, a residual plot against fitted values reveals symmetry about zero with no noticeable slope that would depend upon magnitude (see http://www.utdallas.edu/research/nprlab/figure.htm). Second, Mahalanobis distance measures indicate that even the more extreme points of our model occur at a rate of about 8% on random bivariate normal distributions with our sample means and covariances. Third, influence statistics, such as Cook's distance measure, do not show any point that has greater influence on the FFG DA-BOLD parameter estimate compared to any other point within the model. Lastly, subjecting our model to a Monte Carlo (B = 1000) bootstrapping procedure, we find that the significance of our model remains (? = .615, 95% CI = .01-.96, p = .03). Such random resampling methods allow for equal probability of representation of each observation, minimizing the influence of outliers (see Efron, 1982). By these and many other measures, our model was not unduly influenced by potential outliers.

    Regarding the commenter's criticism of Figure 3 within the article, we agree that one cannot claim a difference between correlations without testing them directly. We were surprised that the commenter would charge us with making such a claim. We did not say that D1 binding potential in ROIs outside of FFG have no correlation with BOLD in FFG, or for that matter are unimportant compared to D1 BP in FFG (p. 14705). Actually reading our manuscript would have assuaged any such concerns and revealed that our focus was on the importance of FFG in the context of DA intensive regions. Our emphasis on the relationship between FFG D1 and BOLD was specifically highlighted because it represents a unique contribution to the literature.

    Our work demonstrated a novel finding, that FFG D1 BP was predictive of FFG BOLD signal during face recognition. As with any empirical findings, especially novel ones, our results must be subjected to further testing to confirm or negate their veracity. This should be done via rigorous replication efforts (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, 2015). The commenter's remarks did not offer replication data to support an alternative hypothesis, nor did it offer sound statistical reasoning for why our methodology was somehow flawed. Rather, the comments were unsupported by the commenter's own evidence and represent a flawed attempt to impugn our work.

    References Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

    Efron, B. (1982). The Jackknife, Bootstrap, and other Resampling Plans (1st Edition). Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

    Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (6251).

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (19 November 2015)
    Page navigation anchor for Weak evidence for a link between dopamine D1 binding potential and fusiform BOLD activity
    Weak evidence for a link between dopamine D1 binding potential and fusiform BOLD activity
    • Guillaume A. Rousselet, Senior Lecturer

    This study is very interesting but the sample size and the results are not sufficient to draw firm conclusions. A version of this comment with Matlab code is available on PubPeer: [http://bit.ly/1PBz2dA]

    In the section on "D1-BOLD relationships", the authors write that, "The standardized correlation coefficient revealed a positive relationship between these variables (B = 0.62; R2 = 0.38, p < 0.007; Fig. 2"...

    Show More

    This study is very interesting but the sample size and the results are not sufficient to draw firm conclusions. A version of this comment with Matlab code is available on PubPeer: [http://bit.ly/1PBz2dA]

    In the section on "D1-BOLD relationships", the authors write that, "The standardized correlation coefficient revealed a positive relationship between these variables (B = 0.62; R2 = 0.38, p < 0.007; Fig. 2"

    I used GraphClick version 3.0 to retrieve the data points from figure 2. A new analysis in Matlab reproduces the results, with an R2 of 0.38. However, R2 is inflated because the same data are used to fit the model and to predict. To avoid overfitting, I used a leave-one-out cross- validation, which reveals an R2 of 20%, almost half the original value. But that's using Pearson's correlation. Remember that the R2 of a linear model is the correlation between obtained and predicted values. Using Spearman's correlation reveals a much weaker value of 0.0939. A plot of predicted observations as a function of obtained observations shows that the OLS model is inaccurate: it overestimates the smallest BOLD responses, and underestimates the largest BOLD responses. Very few observations fall on the reference line where the observed and predicted values would be equal.

    The authors continue, writing, "regression diagnostics did not identify any unduly influential data points; Belsley et al., 1980)."

    Modern outlier detection techniques suggest the presence of two bivariate outliers:

    robust_correlation(data(:,1),data(:,2))

    The code is available in Pernet et al., (2012)

    Finally, the authors state, "No such relationships were observed in any other face-specific network regions"

    This analysis does not demonstrate that the significant correlation differs from the non-significant ones. This common error is described in Nieuwenhuis et al. (2011).

    More information about linear regression can be found in the excellent books by Kuhn and Johnson (2013) and Wilcox (2012).

    References

    Kuhn, M. and Johnson, K. (2013) Applied predictive modeling. Springer, New York.

    Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B.U. & Wagenmakers, E.J. (2011) Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nat Neurosci, 14, 1105-1107.

    Pernet, C.R., Wilcox, R. and Rousselet, G.A. (2012) Robust correlation analyses: false positive and power validation using a new open source matlab toolbox. Front Psychol, 3, 606.

    Wilcox, R.R. (2012) Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. Academic Press, Amsterdam ; Boston.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Heteromodal Cortical Areas Encode Sensory-Motor Features of Word Meaning
  • Pharmacologically Counteracting a Phenotypic Difference in Cerebellar GABAA Receptor Response to Alcohol Prevents Excessive Alcohol Consumption in a High Alcohol-Consuming Rodent Genotype
  • Neuromuscular NMDA Receptors Modulate Developmental Synapse Elimination
Show more Brief Communications
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.