Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Oct;45(10):1-9.
doi: 10.1007/s10072-024-07569-7. Epub 2024 May 9.

Verbal learning in frontal patients: area 9 is critical for employing semantic strategies

Alessandro Cocuzza  1   2 , Giulio Bertani  3 , Giorgio Conte  4   5 , Edoardo Nicolò Aiello  6 , Barbara Zarino  7 , Teresa Difonzo  8 , Stefano Zago  8 , Leonardo Tariciotti  4   3 , Claudia Gendarini  4   8 , Elena Baratelli  9 , Federico Verde  4   6 , Barbara Poletti  6   10 , Nicola Ticozzi  4   6 , Mauro Pluderi  3 , Marco Locatelli  4   3 , Giacomo Pietro Comi  4   8 , Maria Cristina Saetti  4   8
Affiliations

Verbal learning in frontal patients: area 9 is critical for employing semantic strategies

Alessandro Cocuzza et al. Neurol Sci. 2024 Oct.

Erratum in

Abstract

Introduction: Learning is a long-term memory process heavily influenced by the control processes implemented by working memory, including recognition of semantic properties of items by which subjects generate a semantic structure of engrams.

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate the verbal learning strategies of patients affected by a tumor in the left frontal lobe to highlight the role of area 9.

Method: Ten patients with frontal low-grade gliomas and ten healthy control subjects, matched for age, sex and education, were recruited and then evaluated with a two-part verbal learning test: multi-trial word list learning in free recall, and multi-trial word list learning preceded by an explicit semantic strategy cue. Frontal patients were divided into two groups: those either with frontal lesions involving or sparing area 9.

Results: In comparison to healthy control subjects, frontal patients with lesions involving area 9 memorized fewer words and displayed difficulty in using semantic strategies. When the strategy was suggested by the examiner, their performance improved, but to a lesser extent than the healthy control. Conversely, frontal patients with lesions sparing area 9 showed similar results to healthy control subjects.

Conclusion: The results suggested that, while the identification of the categorical criterion requires the integrity of the entire dorsolateral prefrontal area, only area 9, and not the surrounding areas, could be responsible for the effective use of semantic strategies in learning tasks.

Keywords: Area 9; Prefrontal cortex; Semantic clustering; Strategic memory; Verbal learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Experimental word lists used for the neuropsychological testing
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Learning performance of frontal patients with lesions sparing or involving area 9 and healthy control subjects. LS1 = Learning score in the un-cued condition, LS2 = Learning score in the cued condition, F9 = patients with lesions involving area 9, Fn = patients with lesions sparing area 9, HC = healthy control subjects
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Semantic categorization ability of frontal patients with lesions sparing or involving area 9 and healthy control subjects. CI1 = Clustering Index in the un-cued condition, CI2 = Clustering Index in the cued condition, F9 = patients with lesions involving area 9, Fn = patients with lesions sparing area 9, HC = healthy control subjects
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Learning curve of frontal patients for the uncued condition. LS1 = Average number of words recalled, F9 = patients with lesion involving area 9, Fn = patients with lesion sparing area 9
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Learning curve of frontal patients for the cued condition. LS2 = Average number of words recalled, F9 = patients with lesion involving area 9, Fn = patients with lesion sparing area 9
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Graphical decomposition of the Group*Condition interaction on the NCI. NCI = Non-Categorization Index, F9 = patients with lesions involving area 9, Fn = patients with lesions sparing area 9, HC = healthy control subjects, * = significant between-condition difference
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bousfield WA (1953) The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. J Gen Psychol 49(2):229–240. 10.1080/00221309.1953.9710088
    1. Jenkins J, Russell W (1952) Associative clustering during recall. Psychol Sci Public Interest 47(4):818–821. 10.1037/h0063149 - PubMed
    1. Tulving E, Osler S (1967) Transfer effects in whole/part free-recall learning. Can J Psychol 21(3):253–262. 10.1037/h0082979 - PubMed
    1. Mandler G, Pearlstone Z (1966) Free and constrained concept learning and subsequent recall. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav 5(2):126–131. 10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80005-1
    1. Alexander MP, Stuss D, Gillingham S (2009) Impaired list learning is not a general property of frontal lesions. J Cogn Neurosci 21(7):1422–1434. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21094 - PubMed