Decades of neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence have implicated the lateral parietal cortex (LPC) in a myriad of cognitive domains, generating numerous influential theoretical models. However, these theories fail to explain why distinct cognitive activities appear to implicate common neural regions. Here we discuss a unifying model in which the angular gyrus forms part of a wider LPC system with a core underlying neurocomputational function; the multi-sensory buffering of spatio-temporally extended representations. We review the principles derived from computational modelling with neuroimaging task data and functional and structural connectivity measures that underpin the unified neurocomputational framework. We propose that although a variety of cognitive activities might draw on shared underlying machinery, variations in task preference across angular gyrus, and wider LPC, arise from graded changes in the underlying structural connectivity of the region to different input/output information sources. More specifically, we propose two primary axes of organisation: a dorsal–ventral axis and an anterior–posterior axis, with variations in task preference arising from underlying connectivity to different core cognitive networks (e.g. the executive, language, visual, or episodic memory networks).
A long history of neuropsychology and functional neuroimaging has implicated the lateral parietal cortex (LPC), including the angular gyrus (AG), in a confusing myriad of different cognitive processes and tasks, providing only a little clarity about the underlying neurocomputation. Indeed, the LPC is a heterogeneous region (see Text Box 1) with multiple graded subregions, commonly differentiated into dorsal (IPS), and ventral (AG, SMG) subregions (see Fig. 1), yet it is unclear to what extent these anatomical distinctions also indicate functional differences. To interrogate how the LPC and its subregions are implicated in different cognitive processes, two broad approaches are used in the literature. The first is a domain-specific organisation, which assumes that functions/tasks are supported by a series of discrete, neighbouring subregions (Nelson et al. 2010, 2012; Hutchinson et al. 2009; Simon et al. 2002; Seghier 2013b; Seghier et al. 2010). Prominent examples of proposed sub-regions include the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) for number processing or visuospatial tasks (Zacks 2008; Dehaene et al. 2003), supramarginal gyrus (SMG) for tool-related tasks or phonological processing (Humphreys and Ralph 2015; Hickok 2012; Ishibashi et al. 2016), and AG for episodic recollection or semantic processing (Seghier 2013b; Binder et al. 2009; Geschwind 1972; Vilberg and Rugg 2008; Shimamura 2011).
Parietal unified connectivity-biased computation (PUCC) model
The Parietal Unified Connectivity-biased Computation (PUCC) takes a cross-domain perspective of the LPC function (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015; Humphreys et al. 2020b). The model is based on three core assumptions. The first refers to the form of information being processed by the LPC; namely, the LPC is primarily involved in processing temporo-spatial information. Evidence suggests that there are two orthogonal forms of neural representations with differentiation across a ventral (temporal lobe) and a dorsal (parietal) pathway. Whereas the ventral processing routes generalise information across repeated episodes, leading to context-independent representations, such as those in semantic memory (Lambon Ralph et al. 2010; Lambon Ralph 2014; Buzsaki and Moser 2013), the parietal route appears to extract item-independent, temporo-spatial statistics, integrating episodes over items, resulting in representations about order, space, number, etc. (Ueno et al. 2011; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky 2013; Kravitz et al. 2011; Buckner and Carroll 2007; Pessoa et al. 2002; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015).
The second assumption of PUCC is that there is a single core underlying LPC neurocomputation; online, multi-modal buffering of spatio-temporal input/output, and this function is considered to be constant across the LPC region (IPS, AG, and SMG). This kind of multi-modal convergent buffer is important to bring together temporally unfolding information from multiple different input systems to process time-extended behaviours, such as narrative speech comprehension and remembering an episodic event, or non-verbal behaviours, such as sequential object use (Botvinick and Plaut 2004, 2006; Geschwind 1965; Damasio 1989). Parallel distributed processing (PDP) models have demonstrated how this proposed underlying neurocomputation—online buffering of temporo-spatial information—can arise from the same computational process. For example, through repeated buffering of sequential input the system becomes sensitive to the regularities of sequential information (Botvinick and Plaut 2004, 2006; Ueno et al. 2011; McClelland et al. 1989). This could be likened to the formation of action/event schema, or “situation model” which specifies the temporo-spatial relationships between items in a given context.
The third key assumption of PUCC is that whilst the local neurocomputation is constant across LPC, the ‘expressed’ contribution of each LPC subregion to different cognitive activities will be influenced by its long-range connections. Thus, even on an assumption that the online buffering computation might be the same throughout the LPC, the types and forms of information being buffered will reflect the inputs and outputs to each subregion. This tenet is observed in various implemented computational models whereby a processing unit’s performance is influenced not only by its local computation but also by its connectivity to varying input/output systems (cf. ‘connectivity-constrained cognition–C3’: (Plaut 2002; Lambon Ralph et al. 2001; Chen et al. 2017). In terms of the underlying architecture, anatomical evidence suggests that there are variations in cytoarchitecture and functional/structural connectivity across LPC (Caspers et al. 2008, 2011; Uddin et al. 2010; Cloutman et al. 2013). Consequently, at least some domain-specific variability in the expression of cognitive function across LPC might be expected.
Therefore, according to PUCC, the emergent activation patterns across LPC results from both the core underlying neurocomputation of LPC (multi-modal buffering of temporo-spatial information) and the interaction of a region’s input and output systems, which may vary across the LPC (e.g. visual, verbal, spatial, executive, etc.) (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015; Humphreys et al. 2020b).
What is the nature of the LPC buffer?
We assume that the LPC acts as an online temporary buffer of multi-modal spatio-temporal input, rather than supporting long-term stored information per se. We propose that this buffer might be engaged by any task that involves the processing of information that is inherently varying over time and/or space. Some prominent examples are narrative comprehension or episodic recall, which require maintenance and/or manipulation of information over time. To put this in context, tasks that are less likely to require buffering, are single-item tasks that are considered more time/context independent in which the item that is currently presented does not need to be related to other internal or external forms of information. For example, picture naming tasks do not reliably engage the LPC as shown by a meta-analysis of picture-naming imaging studies (Chouinard and Goodale 2010). Notably, due to the continuous nature of our experiences, most cognitive functions would entail some level of buffering, which might be attenuated under specific conditions. In the episodic memory domain, for example, conditions that involve more buffering are those that require longer maintenance periods, integration across multiple sources, and maintenance of large amounts of information; all of these were shown to engage the AG (Ben-Zvi et al. 2015; Tibon et al. 2019; Vilberg and Rugg 2012; Guerin and Miller 2011).
Full characterisation of the temporal properties of the LPC buffering system requires additional research. In general, it has been shown that the timescales of information processing are shorter in sensory areas, and longer in “higher-order” areas (Chien and Honey 2020; Honey et al. 2012; Murray et al. 2014; Stephens et al. 2013). More specifically to the LPC, AG activation was shown to respond more strongly to information at the level of a paragraph, vs. sentences and single words (Hasson et al. 2008; Lerner et al. 2011). Furthermore, AG activation is maintained throughout the entirety of an event, whereas hippocampus activation appears to indicate event boundaries (Baldassano et al. 2017; Ben-Yakov and Henson 2018). Other functions supported by the LPC might require buffering over shorter timescales. For example, if SMG supports phonological buffering this would presumably require faster temporal resolution at the second/millisecond level. We propose that these varying timescales are one example of the functional distinctions that arise across the LPC, driven by variations in anatomical input (see below).
Theoretical roots and current evidence of LPC “buffer”
A “buffering-type” function is consistent, and indeed partly inspired by more domain- and/or region-specific models of LPC function, such as an “episodic buffer” or a “schematic-convergence zone” in AG (Wagner et al. 2015; Shimamura 2011), or “phonological-buffer” in SMG (Baddeley 2000; Vilberg and Rugg 2008; Wagner et al. 2005), as well as a “working-memory” type system in dorsal LPC which temporarily stores and manipulates information (Pessoa et al. 2002; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015). An online buffer would seem to be necessary for bottom-up capture of attention by an unexpected target (i.e., to determine what might be expected in a continuous current context (Corbetta and Shulman 2002b), for the construction of internal models, or “situation-models”, of the current world, as well as for the (re)construction of episodic and future events (Hasson et al. 2008; Lerner et al. 2011; Ramanan and Bellana 2019; Baldassano et al. 2017). Whilst domain- and/or anatomically-specific theories have been useful to account for findings from that domain of interest, they fail to explain how and why disparate cognitive domains coalesce in LPC subregions and thus what types of domain-general neurocomputation underlies processing across tasks. According to PUCC, these apparently domain-specific functions are the product of two key ingredients, namely, a common underlying temporo-spatial buffering computation combined with the varying input/output connections to other neural regions (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015, 2017a; Corbetta and Shulman 2002b; Humphreys et al. 2020b).
There is a growing body of evidence in favour of a buffer-type LPC function. For instance, patient with LPC damage are not profoundly amnesic, unlike those with damage to the medial temporal lobe, rather their memory lacks clarity or vividness of episodic details (Berryhill et al. 2007; Humphreys et al. 2020b; Simons et al. 2008) which might reflect reduced ability to buffer rich representations. Furthermore, these patients demonstrate reduced ability to regenerate multi-modal associative representations (Ben-Zvi et al. 2015), as one might predict from a deficit in buffering multi-modal contextual information (Bonnici et al. 2018; Davidson et al. 2008; Yazar et al. 2014; Moscovitch et al. 2016; Shimamura 2011; St. Jacques 2019). Neuroimaging evidence supports the role of LPC in a temporo-spatial context-related processing network (although see below for important caveats when considering neuroimaging evidence of LPC function). The AG responds more strongly to images with strong rather than weak contextual associations (Bar et al. 2008), when subjects remember contextual associates of an item (Fornito et al. 2012), or when episodic memories are vividly retrieved, suggesting the recollection of rich contextually-specific details (Kuhl and Chun 2014; Tibon et al. 2019). Furthermore, it is implicated in tasks that require temporal unfolding of information, thus rely on temporal context. Some examples are episodic retrieval or future thinking (Buckner et al. 2008), narrative speech comprehension (Branzi et al. 2020), and event occurrence frequency (d’Acremont et al. 2013). The LPC is also sensitive to the temporal structure of events in linguistic, pictorial, numerical, and motoric sequence tasks (Kuperberg et al. 2003; Hoenig and Scheef 2009; Melrose et al. 2008; Tinaz et al. 2006, 2008; Gheysen et al. 2010; Stevens et al. 2005; Ciaramelli et al. 2008; Bubic et al. 2009; Humphreys et al. 2020a). We would predict that if the LPC operates as a “buffering-system” then the content represented in the system would update periodically, to reflect the changing incoming internal/external information. Indeed, a good example of evidence that the current “content” of the LPC reflects the currently processed information has been shown using MVPA in the episodic memory literature (Wagner et al. 2015; Lee and Kuhl 2016), whereby the episodic content of a person’s current recall (in this case the visual features of a face) directly aligns with decoding in the AG (Lee and Kuhl 2016).
Anatomical evidence: variations in cytoarchitecture, structural, and functional connectivity
We assume that a wide variety of cognitive activities can arise from a single underlying neurocomputation (multi-modal buffering), with the distinctions in the expressed cognitive function arising across the region based on variations in anatomical input (e.g. visual, verbal, spatial, executive etc.) (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015). In terms of the underlying architecture, anatomical evidence suggests that there are variations in cytoarchitecture and functional/structural connectivity across LPC (Caspers et al. 2008, 2011; Uddin et al. 2010; Cloutman et al. 2013) along two axes: a dorsal–ventral axis and an anterior–posterior axis. Given the anatomical heterogeneity of the LPC, at least some variability in cognitive function across LPC might be expected.
Along the dorsal–ventral axis, the dorsal LPC (dLPC) forms part of a fronto-parietal system, which is part of the multiple-demand network (Duncan 2010), whereas the ventral LPC (vLPC) connects with a distributed set of regions associated with the default mode network (DMN) or saliency network (Cloutman et al. 2013; Spreng et al. 2010; Power and Petersen 2013; Vincent et al. 2008; Uddin et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2012; Yeo et al. 2013; Power et al. 2011), with the fronto-parietal and DMN networks often showing anti-correlated activity (Keller et al. 2013; Chai et al. 2012; Fox et al. 2009; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2017b). The classical neuropsychological literature demonstrated that damage to dorsal vs. ventral LPC produces different patterns of deficits, such as ideomotor vs. ideational apraxia, or Bálint's vs. Gerstmann’s syndrome (Buxbaum et al. 2006; Vallar 2007). Likewise, in functional neuroimaging a dorsal–ventral difference has been observed in separate cognitive literatures. For instance, goal-directed attention vs. stimulus-driven attention, numerical calculation vs. numerical fact recall, or episodic decisions (e.g. “mnemonic accumulator”) vs. episodic recollection (Sestieri et al. 2017; Gonzalez et al. 2015; Delazer et al. 2003; Kim 2010; Vilberg and Rugg 2008; Corbetta and Shulman 2002a). In line with the assumption of the PUCC model, these task-specific variations can be explained in terms of varying input/output systems to the dLPC and vLPC. Indeed, the dLPC is structurally connected to frontal executive processing areas (Caspers et al. 2011; Cloutman et al. 2013) and forms part of a domain-general multiple-demand network, necessary for any executively demanding task (Duncan 2010). Most models of executive function or top-down attention posit a mechanism, akin to a working-memory like system, that selects and manipulates temporarily buffered information (Crowe et al. 2013). In contrast, without the direct influence of prefrontal goal-directed cognition, the vLPC will act more like a ‘slave’ buffer whereby information is accumulated and maintained throughout a sequential activity. Indeed, the divergent dorsal vs. ventral pattern is supported by evidence showing an opposing influence of task difficulty in dorsal vs. ventral LPC. Specifically, dLPC (IPS) shows a positive correlation with task difficulty across cognitive domains, whereas vLPC, which is commonly associated with the DMN, shows the inverse pattern—stronger deactivation for harder tasks (Gilbert et al. 2012; Harrison et al. 2011; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2017b).
In addition to the emergent dorsal–ventral connectivity/functional differences, there exists an additional anterior–posterior organisational axis within the vLPC, as evidenced by varying connectivity to the saliency network, DMN, language network, and visuospatial network (Caspers et al. 2011; Cloutman et al. 2013; Daselaar et al. 2013). These variations are reflected in differences in the emergent cognitive functions. For instance, anterior vLPC (SMG) has been associated with phonological processing and bottom-up attention, whereas the AG forms part of the DMN and is engaged by episodic/autobiographical memory retrieval, narrative comprehension, numerical fact retrieval etc. (Humphreys et al. 2020a, 2022a; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015; Branzi et al. 2020; Corbetta and Shulman 2002a; Delazer et al. 2003; Kim 2010; Vilberg and Rugg 2008).
Directly combining functional data with functional/structural connectivity
As discussed above, the central assumptions of the PUCC model are that whilst LPC as a whole might share a common underlying neurocomputation (e.g., multimodal buffering of temporo-spatial information), variations in function across subregions arise due to differences in the underlying input (e.g. visual, verbal, spatial, executive etc.). Therefore, PUCC would predict a direct one-to-one mapping in a region’s task-related activation profile and its connectivity to certain functional networks (e.g. visual, linguistic, episodic memory etc.), with the level of activation dependent on the extent to which a particular task draws on resources from other cognitive/sensory networks. Whilst the evidence discussed above is consistent with these assumptions, a direct test of the model requires (1) within-study cross-domain comparisons, and (2) directly linking functional data with measures of functional and structural connectivity. We addressed this issue in a series of studies that especially focused on the AG and its dorsal boarder with lateral IPS (Humphreys et al. 2020a, 2022b). First, using resting-state ICA, we identified separable AG subregions, consistent with those identified elsewhere (Caspers et al. 2008, 2011; Uddin et al. 2010; Cloutman et al. 2013; Mars et al. 2011). Specifically, within the AG, we identified a dorsal region (dorsal PGa and IPS) and three ventral AG regions: an anterior region (ventral PGa), a central region (mid PGp), and a posterior region (posterior PGp). These subregions were found to have varying underlying connectivity profiles, as verified by independent DTI and resting-state fMRI analyses (see Fig. 2). Specifically, the dorsal region (AG/IPS) showed long-range connectivity with lateral frontal executive control regions in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and inferior frontal gyrus. In contrast within vLPC, anterior AG showed connectivity with temporal lobe language areas (Lambon Ralph et al. 2017; Vigneau et al. 2006; Binder et al. 2009), the mid AG showed connectivity with areas involved in the DMN and the core recollection network (Thakral et al. 2017), including the hippocampus, as well as large portions of the precuneus (Rugg and Vilberg 2013; Sestieri et al. 2011), and the posterior AG connected with areas associated with visual processing and spatial attention, including the medial parietal cortex and occipital lobe (Zacks 2008; Corbetta and Shulman 2002b).
We then examined variations in the pattern of task-based activation across these subregions in two independent fMRI studies. In the first fMRI study, participants were presented with temporal sequences of stimuli that followed either a coherent or violated sequence in a sentence, number, and picture task (Humphreys et al. 2020a). In the second study, participants performed a series of tasks involving episodic memory retrieval, semantic memory retrieval, picture-decisions, and a low-level visual control task (Humphreys et al. 2022b). Consistent with the notion that the whole LPC is sensitive to the temporal structure of events, the results of the first study showed that all subregions within the LPC were sensitive to the coherence of the sequences. Nevertheless, the task activation profile varied across subregions, the pattern of which closely mirrored its functional and structural connectivity profile (see Fig. 2). Specifically, consistent with the role of IPS as part of a domain-general executive processing network, the dorsal region demonstrated a domain-general response with the level of activation correlating with task difficulty both within and across cognitive tasks. Ventral AG also showed a functional response consistent with each regions individual connectivity profile. Specifically, the central AG (mid PGp), which is functionally connected with the DMN and episodic retrieval network, showed a strong positive response during episodic retrieval, with activation correlating with memory vividness. This region was deactivated by all other tasks, with the level of deactivation inversely correlated with task difficulty (this result has since been replicated in a propositional speech production task (Humphreys et al. 2022a)). In contrast, the anterior region that connected with the fronto-temporal language system showed positive activation for only the sentence task, and the posterior region was part of the visual/SPL network only responded to tasks with pictorial stimuli (the picture sequence and picture-decision tasks). Interestingly, the AG showed no sensitivity to the semantic retrieval task—see below for possible explanations. Together these results fit with the PUCC model that suggests a shift in the functional engagement of vLPC based on shifts in the underlying structurally connectivity of the network.
Important factors to consider when studying LPC function
The various studies that were conducted since PUCC was proposed, highlight some key considerations for future research. In particular, these studies demonstrate that when designing a study aiming to test the function of the LPC direct cross-domain comparisons are required. Until recently, most models have approached LPC function from a single domain (although see recent reviews Rugg and King 2018; Renoult et al. 2019). Nevertheless, reviews and cross-domain meta-analyses of existing fMRI data have clearly identified overlapping areas of activation within the LPC. These findings, however, are consistent with two alternative interpretations: (1) True overlap across tasks implicating the region in a common neurocomputation (Cabeza et al. 2012; Corbetta and Shulman 2002b; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015, 2017b; Walsh 2003; Fedorenko et al. 2013) or (2) small-scale variability in function across the LPC which is blurred by cross-study comparisons or meta-analyses (Dehaene et al. 2003). Whilst highly suggestive of domain-general computations in these regions, one needs within-participant comparisons to test the model. To date, only a handful of within-study cross-domain comparisons have been conducted, and very few looked at more than two domains.
Further to this, when interpreting the results from neuroimaging studies of LPC function, it is necessary to take certain factors into account. First, the direction of activation relative to rest: given the involvement of LPC in the DMN, it is of critical importance to consider whether a task positively or negatively engages the LPC relative to rest. Contrasts between a cognitive task of interest vs. an active control condition are ambiguous because the difference could result from (1) greater positive activation for the task or (2) greater deactivation for the control. This issue becomes even more important when considering the impact of task difficulty on activation and deactivation in this region (see next). Whilst many tasks generate deactivation in the AG, this is not always the case, and the handful of activities that do positively engage the AG might be crucial sources of evidence about its true contribution (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2015; Humphreys et al. 2022a, 2022b). A straightforward expectation applied to almost all brain regions is that if a task critically requires the LPC then the LPC should be strongly engaged by that task. Indeed, this is the pattern observed in the anterior temporal lobe (ATL) where semantic tasks are known to positively engage the ATL relative to rest, whereas non-semantic tasks do not modulate/deactivate ATL (Humphreys et al. 2015, 2022a, 2022b). Perhaps one of the major motivations for considering task (de)activation relative to rest is that rest can be used as a common constant acting as a common reference point across tasks. This is particularly important when conducting cross-domain comparisons. For instance, when one is examining a single cognitive domain it is possible to use a within-domain baseline i.e. compare strong vs. weak demanding version of the same task (e.g. words > non-words in a semantic memory task). Since the same is not possible across cognitive domains, rest acts as a common constant for cross-domain comparisons, even if the true cognitive interpretation of rest is debated.
Second, when interpreting the results it is important to consider the impact of task-difficulty. Task-difficulty is important in multiple ways. First, it correlates positively with activation in dLPC (dorsal AG/IPS) but negatively with the level of activation within vLPC or, put in a different way, the level of deactivation in vLPC (mid-AG) is positively related to task difficulty. Indeed, the dLPC and vLPC have often been shown to be anticorrelated in resting-state data (Keller et al. 2013; Chai et al. 2012; Fox et al. 2009; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2017b). Furthermore, task-difficulty deactivations need to be accounted for when interpreting differences in ventral LPC areas. A ‘positive’ difference can be obtained in the AG simply by comparing easy > hard task conditions even for tasks that are entirely non-semantic, non-linguistic and non-episodic (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2017b). One major limitation of evidence in favour of the semantic hypothesis is that apparent semantic effects observed from fMRI studies could be explained by a difficulty confound (e.g. word > nonword, concrete > abstract). Indeed, it is known that the level of de-activation correlates with task difficulty (Gilbert et al. 2012; Harrison et al. 2011; Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2017b)), it has been shown that one can both eliminate the difference between semantic and non-semantic tasks when task difficulty is controlled (Humphreys and Lambon Ralph 2017b) and, more compellingly, also flip the typical ‘semantic’ effects (e.g. words > nonwords, concrete > abstract) by reversing the difficulty of the tasks or stimuli (Pexman et al. 2007; Graves et al. 2017). Finally, the effect of task difficulty on LPC activation (and AG in particular) depends on specific task demands. When the AG is not critical for task performance the AG is deactivated, with stronger deactivation for hard vs. easy tasks. Note, however, that when AG is critical to task performance, such as during episodic memory retrieval, a different pattern is found: the AG is positively engaged, and increased task difficulty is associated with increased activation (Humphreys et al. 2022a, b).
A third factor that should be considered is the potential relationship between univariate activity and multivariate patterns. As abovementioned, several recent studies focusing on voxel-wise multivariate analysis of LPC regions provide evidence that the LPC holds currently processed content. For example, a study that measured brain activity during viewing and mental replay of short videos showed that univariate activity of mental replay in the dorsal AG negatively correlated with recollection, whereas the ventral and anterior parts of the AG depicted a multivariate content-sensitive signal (St-Laurent et al. 2015). In another study, participants recalled visual stimuli. Content reactivation in the LPC was then assessed via multivoxel pattern analysis, and event-specific activity patterns of recalled stimuli were found in the AG (Kuhl and Chun 2014). In a third example, information extracted from individual face images was correlated with fMRI activity patterns. In two different tasks, targeting perception and memory retrieval, the authors were able to successfully reconstruct individual faces from activity patterns within the AG (Lee and Kuhl 2016). Finally, when directly assessing the relations between pattern-based content representation and mean activation in the context of subsequent remembering (i.e., during episodic encoding) in the ventral posterior parietal cortex (vPPC), the authors showed that within the same vPPC voxels, subsequent memory was negatively predicted by mean univariate activation, but positively predicted by the strength of pattern-based information (Lee et al. 2017). These examples provide compelling evidence for stimulus-specific content representations in this region, which is consistent with our proposal of an online buffering system. They also demonstrate potential divergences between univariate and multivariate activity patterns, and that for certain cognitive functions (e.g., during memory encoding; as in Lee et al. 2017), AG might show overall deactivation, while still maintaining online information. These important variations, as well as their interactions with the other key factors mentioned above (i.e., direction of activation and task difficulty) should be carefully considered when designing experiments targeting LPC functions, and when interpreting the results thereof.
Here we propose a unifying model of the lateral parietal function. We review evidence that supports the core assumptions of our proposal (although further work is needed to understand the implications of this theory; see Text Box 2 for Outstanding Questions). Namely, we propose that although a variety of cognitive activities might draw on shared underlying machinery, variations in task preference across, and wider LPC, arise from graded changes in the underlying structural connectivity of the region with different input/output information sources. More specifically, we propose two primary axes of organisation: a dorsal–ventral axis and an anterior–posterior axis, with variations in task preference arising from underlying connectivity to different core cognitive networks (e.g., the executive, language, visual, or episodic memory networks). With this, we join other theories that assign computational or process-driven rather than domain-driven roles to dissociated brain regions (Moscovitch et al. 2016).
Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.
Baddeley A (2000) The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci 4:417–423
Baker CM, Burks JD, Briggs RG, Conner AK, Glenn CA, Sali G, McCoy TM, Battiste JD, O’Donoghue DL, Sughrue ME (2018) A connectomic atlas of the human cerebrum—chapter: introduction, methods, and significance. Operative Neurosurg 15(1):S1–S9
Baldassano C, Chen J, Zadbood A, Pillow JW, Hasson U, Norman KA (2017) Discovering event structure in continuous narrative perception and memory. Neuron 95(3):709–721
Bar M, Aminoff E, Schacter DL (2008) Scenes unseen: the parahippocampal cortex intrinsically subserves contextual associations, not scenes or places per se. J Neurosci 28(34):8539–8544. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.0987-08.2008
Ben-Yakov A, Henson RNA (2018) The hippocampal film editor: sensitivity and specificity to event boundaries in continuous experience. J Neurosci 38(47):10057–10068. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0524-18.2018
Ben-Zvi S, Soroker N, Levy DA (2015) Parietal lesion effects on cued recall following pair associate learning. Neuropsychologia 73:176–194
Berryhill ME, Phuong L, Picasso L, Cabeza R, Olson IR (2007) Parietal lobe and episodic memory: bilateral damage causes impaired free recall of autobiographical memory. J Neurosci 27:14415–14423
Binder JR, Desai RH, Graves WW, Conant L (2009) Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 19(12):2767–2796. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055
Bonnici HM, Cheke LG, Green DAE, FitzGerald THMB, Simons JS (2018) Specifying a causal role for angular gyrus in autobiographical memory. J Neurosci 38:10438–10443
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M (2013) Reconciling time, space and function: a new dorsal-ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain Lang 125(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.010
Botvinick MM, Plaut DC (2004) Doing without schema hierarchies: a recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychol Rev 111(2):395–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.395
Botvinick MM, Plaut DC (2006) Short-term memory for serial order: a recurrent neural network model. Psychol Rev 113(2):201–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.201
Branzi FM, Humphreys GF, Hoffman P, Lambon Ralph MA (2020) Revealing the neural networks that extract conceptual gestalts from continuously evolving or changing semantic contexts. Neuroimage 220:116802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116802
Bubic A, von Cramon DY, Jacobsen T, Schroger E, Schubotz RI (2009) Violation of expectation: neural correlates reflect bases of prediction. J Cognitive Neurosci 21(1):155–168. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21013
Buckner RL, Carroll DC (2007) Self-projection and the brain. Trends Cogn Sci 11(2):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004
Buckner RL, Andrews-Hanna JR, Schacter DL (2008) The brain’s default network—anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Ann NY Acad Sci 1124:1–38. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.011
Buxbaum LJ, Kyle KM, Tang K, Detre JA (2006) Neural substrates of knowledge of hand postures for object grasping and functional object use: evidence from fMRI. Brain Res 1117(1):175–185
Buzsaki G, Moser EI (2013) Memory, navigation and theta rhythm in the hippocampal-entorhinal system. Nat Neurosci 16(2):130–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/Nn.3304
Cabeza R, Ciaramelli E, Moscovitch M (2012) Cognitive contributions of the ventral parietal cortex: an integrative theoretical account. Trends Cogn Sci 16(6):338–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.008
Cabeza R, Stanley LS, Moscovitch M (2018) Process-specific alliances (PSAs) in cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 22(11):996–1010
Caspers S, Eickhoff SB, Geyer S, Scheperjans F, Mohlberg H, Zilles K, Amunts K (2008) The human inferior parietal lobule in stereotaxic space. Brain Struct Funct 212(6):481–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-008-0195-z
Caspers S, Eickhoff SB, Rick T, von Kapri A, Kuhlen T, Huang R, Shah NJ, Zilles K (2011) Probabilistic fibre tract analysis of cytoarchitectonically defined human inferior parietal lobule areas reveals similarities to macaques. Neuroimage 58(2):362–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.027
Chai XQJ, Castanon AN, Ongur D, Whitfield-Gabrieli S (2012) Anticorrelations in resting state networks without global signal regression. Neuroimage 59(2):1420–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.048
Chen L, Lambon Ralph MA, Rogers TT (2017) A unified model of human semantic knowledge and its disorders. Nat Hum Behav 1:1–10
Chien HYS, Honey CJ (2020) Constructing and forgetting temporal context in the human cerebral cortex. Neuron 106:675-686.e611
Chouinard PA, Goodale MA (2010) Category-specific neural processing for naming pictures of animals and naming pictures of tools: an ALE meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia 48(2):409–418
Ciaramelli E, Grady CL, Moscovitch M (2008) Top-down and bottom-up attention to memory: a hypothesis (AtoM) on the role of the posterior parietal cortex in memory retrieval. Neuropsychologia 46(7):1828–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.022
Cloutman LL, Binney RJ, Morris DM, Parker GJM, Lambon Ralph MA (2013) Using in vivo probabilistic tractography to reveal two segregated dorsal ‘language-cognitive’ pathways in the human brain. Brain Lang 127:230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.06.005
Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002a) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(3):201–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755
Crowe DA, Goodwin SJ, Blackman RK, Sakellaridi S, Sponheim SR, MacDonald AW, Chafee MV (2013) Prefrontal neurons transmit signals to parietal neurons that reflect executive control of cognition. Nat Neurosci 16:1484–1491
d’Acremont M, Schultz W, Bossaerts P (2013) The human brain encodes event frequencies while forming subjective beliefs. J Neurosci 33(26):10887–10897. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.5829-12.2013
Damasio AR (1989) Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: a systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition 33:25–62
Daselaar SM, Huijbers W, Eklund K, Moscovitch M, Cabeza R (2013) Resting—state functionl connectivity of ventral parietal regions associated with attention reorienting and episodic recollection. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/Fnhum.2013.00038
Davidson PSR, Anaki D, Ciaramelli E, Cohn M, Kim ASN, Murphy KJ, Levine B (2008) Does lateral parietal cortex support episodic memory? Evidence from focal lesion patients. Neuropsychologia 46:1743–1755
Dehaene S, Piazza M, Pinel P, Cohen L (2003) Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cogn Neuropsychol 20(3–6):487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000239
Delazer M, Domahs F, Bartha L, Brenneis C, Lochy A, Trieb T, Benke T (2003) Learning complex arithmetic—an fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Res 18(1):76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbraines.2003.09.005
Duncan J (2010) The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends Cogn Sci 14(4):172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004
Fedorenko E, Duncan J, Kanwisher N (2013) Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and parietal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(41):16616–16621. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315235110
Fornito A, Harrison BJ, Zalesky A, Simons JS (2012) Competitive and cooperative dynamics of large-scale brain functional networks supporting recollection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(31):12788–12793. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204185109
Fox MD, Zhang DY, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME (2009) The global signal and observed anticorrelated resting state brain networks. J Neurophysiol 101(6):3270–3283. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90777.2008
Geschwind N (1965) Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. Brain 88(2):237–294
Geschwind N (1972) Language and brain. Sci Am 226(4):76–000
Gheysen F, Van Opstal F, Roggeman C, Van Waelvelde H, Fias W (2010) Hippocampal contribution to early and later stages of implicit motor sequence learning. Exp Brain Res 202(4):795–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2186-6
Gilbert S, Bird G, Frith C, Burgess P (2012) Does “task difficulty” explain “task-induced deactivation?” Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00125
Gonzalez AJ, Hutchinson JB, Uncapher MR, Chen J, LaRocque KF, Foster BL, Rangarajan V, Parvizi J, Wagner AD (2015) Parietal dynamics during recognition memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(35):11066–11071
Graves WW, Boukrina O, Mattheiss SR, Alexander EJ, Baillet S (2017) Reversing the standard neural signature of the word-nonword distinction. J Cognitive Neurosci 29(1):79–94
Guerin SA, Miller MB (2011) Parietal cortex tracks the amount of information retrieved even when it is not the basis of a memory decision. Neuroimage 55(2):801–807
Harrison BJ, Pujol J, Contreras-Rodríguez O, Soriano-Mas C, López-Solà M, Deus J, Ortiz H, Blanco-Hinojo L, Alonso P, Hernández-Ribas R, Cardoner N, Menchón JM (2011) Task-induced deactivation from rest extends beyond the default mode brain network. PLoS One 6(7):e22964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022964
Hasson U, Yang E, Vallines I, Heeger DJ, Rubin N (2008) A hierarchy of temporal receptive windows in human cortex. J Neurosci 28(10):2539–2550. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5487-07.2008
Hickok G (2012) The cortical organization of speech processing: feedback control and predictive coding the context of a dual-stream model. J Commun Disord 45(6):393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.06.004
Hoenig K, Scheef L (2009) Neural correlates of semantic ambiguity processing during context verification. Neuroimage 45(3):1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.044
Honey CJ, Thesen T, Donner TH, Silbert LJ, Carlson CE, Devinsky O, Doyle WK, Rubin N, Heeger DJ, Hasson U (2012) Slow cortical dynamics and the accumulation of information over long timescales. Neuron 76:423–434
Humphreys GF, Lambon Ralph MA (2015) Fusion and fission of cognitive functions in the human parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex 25:3547–3560
Humphreys GF, Lambon Ralph MA (2017) Mapping domain-selective and counterpointed domain-general higher cognitive functions in the lateral parietal cortex: evidence from fmri comparisons of difficulty-varying semantic versus visuo-spatial tasks, and functional connectivity analyses. Cereb Cortex 27(8):4199–4212. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx107
Humphreys GF, Ralph MA (2015) Fusion and fission of cognitive functions in the human parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex 25(10):3547–3560. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu198
Humphreys GF, Hoffman P, Visser M, Binney RJ, Ralph MAL (2015) Establishing task- and modality-dependent dissociations between the semantic and default mode networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(25):7857–7862. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422760112
Humphreys GF, Jackson RL, Lambon Ralph MA (2020a) Overarching principles and dimensions of the functional organization in the inferior parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex 30(11):5639–5653
Humphreys GF, Lambon Ralph MA, Simons JS (2020b) A unifying account of angular gyrus contributions to episodic and semantic cognition. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r2deu
Humphreys GF, Halai AD, Branzi FM, Lambon Ralph MA (2022) The angular gyrus is engaged by autobiographical recall not object-semantics, or event-semantics: evidence from contrastive propositional speech production. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.04.487000
Humphreys GF, Jung J, Lambon Ralph MA (2022) The convergence and divergence of episodic and semantic functions across lateral parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaa125
Hutchinson JB, Uncapher MR, Wagner AD (2009) Posterior parietal cortex and episodic retrieval: convergent and divergent effects of attention and memory. Learn Mem 16(6):343–356. https://doi.org/10.1101/Lm.919109
Hyvärinen J (1982) Posterior parietal lobe of the primate brain. Physiol Rev 62(3):1060–1129
Ishibashi R, Pobric G, Saito S, Lambon Ralph MA (2016) The neural network for tool-related cognition: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 70 neuroimaging contrasts. Cogn Neuropsychol 33(3–4):241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2016.1188798
Kaas JH, Qi HX, Stepniewska I (2018) Chapter 2—the evolution of parietal cortex in primates. In: Vallar G, Coslett H, Branch BT (eds) The parietal lobe. Elsevier, pp 31–52
Keller CJ, Bickel S, Honey CJ, Groppe DM, Entz L, Craddock RC, Lado FA, Kelly C, Milham M, Mehta AD (2013) Neurophysiological investigation of spontaneous correlated and anticorrelated fluctuations of the BOLD signal. J Neurosci 33(15):6333–6342. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.4837-12.2013
Kim H (2010) Dissociating the roles of the default-mode, dorsal, and ventral networks in episodic memory retrieval. Neuroimage 50(4):1648–1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.051
Kravitz DJ, Saleem KS, Baker CI, Mishkin M (2011) A new neural framework for visuospatial processing. Nat Rev Neurosci 12(4):217–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/Nrn3008
Kuhl BA, Chun MM (2014) Successful remembering elicits event-specific activity patterns in lateral parietal cortex. J Neurosci 34:8051–8060
Kuperberg GR, Holcomb PJ, Sitnikova T, Greve D, Dale AM, Caplan D (2003) Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. J Cognitive Neurosci 15(2):272–293. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321208204
Lambon Ralph MA (2014) Neurocognitive insights on conceptual knowledge and its breakdown. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 369:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0392
Lambon Ralph MA, McClelland JL, Patterson K, Galton CJ, Hodges JR (2001) No right to speak? The relationship between object naming and semantic impairment: neuro-psychological evidence and a computational model. J Cognitive Neurosci 13:341–356
Lambon Ralph MA, Sage K, Jones RW, Mayberry EJ (2010) Coherent concepts are computed in the anterior temporal lobes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(6):2717–2722. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907307107
Lambon Ralph MA, Jefferies E, Patterson K, Rogers TT (2017) The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 18(1):42–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.150
Lee H, Kuhl BA (2016) Reconstructing perceived and retrieved faces from activity patterns in lateral parietal cortex. J Neurosci 36(22):6069–6082. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4286-15.2016
Lee MH, Hacker CD, Snyder AZ, Corbetta M, Zhang D, Leuthardt EC, Shimony JS (2012) Clustering of resting state networks. PLoS One 7(7):e40370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040370
Lee H, Chun MM, Kuhl BA (2017) Lower parietal encoding activation is associated with sharper information and better memory. Cereb Cortex 27:2486–2499
Lerner Y, Honey CJ, Silbert LJ, Hasson U (2011) Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. J Neurosci 31(8):2906–2915. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.3684-10.2011
Mars RB, Jbabdi S, Sallet J, O’Reilly JX, Croxson PL, Olivier E, Noonan MP, Bergmann C, Mitchell AS, Baxter MG, Behrens TE, Johansen-Berg H, Tomassini V, Miller KL, Rushworth MF (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging tractography-based parcellation of the human parietal cortex and comparison with human and macaque resting-state functional connectivity. J Neurosci 31(11):4087–4100. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5102-10.2011
McClelland JL, St. Jhon M, Taraban R (1989) Sentence comprehension: a parallel distributed processing approach. Lang Cogn Process 4:287–335
Melrose RJ, Tinaz S, Castelo JM, Courtney MG, Stern CE (2008) Compromised fronto-striatal functioning in HIV: an fMRI investigation of semantic event sequencing. Behav Brain Res 188(2):337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.11.021
Moscovitch M, Cabeza R, Winocur G, Nadel L (2016) Episodic memory and beyond: the hippocampus and neocortex in transformation. Annu Rev Psychol 67:105–134
Murray JD, Bernacchia A, Freedman DJ, Romo R, Wallis JD, Cai X, Padoa-Schioppa C, Pasternak T, Seo H, Lee D, Wang X-J (2014) A hierarchy of intrinsic timescales across primate cortex. Nat Neurosci 17:1661–1663
Nelson SM, Cohen AL, Power JD, Wig GS, Miezin FM, Wheeler ME, Velanova K, Donaldson DI, Phillips JS, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE (2010) A parcellation scheme for human left lateral parietal cortex. Neuron 67(1):156–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.025
Nelson SM, McDermott KB, Petersen SE (2012) In favor of a “fractionation” view of ventral parietal cortex: comment on Cabeza et al. Trends Cogn Sci 16(8):399–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.014 (Author reply 400-391)
Noonan KA, Jefferies E, Visser M, Lambon Ralph MA (2013) Going beyond inferior prefrontal involvement in semantic control: evidence for the additional contribution of dorsal angular gyrus and posterior middle temporal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 25(11):1824–1850. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00442
Patterson K, Lambon Ralph MA (1999) Selective disorders of reading? Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:235–239
Pessoa L, Gutierrez E, Bandettini PA, Ungerleider LG (2002) Neural correlates of visual working memory. Neuron 35(5):975–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00817-6
Pexman PM, Hargreaves IS, Edwards JD, Henry LC, Goodyear BG (2007) Neural correlates of concreteness in semantic categorization. J Cogn Neurosci 19(8):1407–1419. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1407
Plaut DC (2002) Graded modality-specific specialization in semantics: a computational account of optic aphasia. Cogn Neuropsychol 19:603–639
Power JD, Petersen SE (2013) Control-related systems in the human brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol 23(2):223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.009
Power JD, Cohen AL, Nelson SM, Wig GS, Barnes KA, Church JA, Vogel AC, Laumann TO, Miezin FM, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE (2011) Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron 72(4):665–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006
Ramanan S, Bellana B (2019) A domain-general role for the angular gyrus in retrieving internal representations of the external world. J Neurosci 39(16):2978–2980
Renoult L, Irish M, Moscovitch M, Rugg MD (2019) From knowing to remembering: the semantic-episodic distinction. Trends Cogn Sci 23(12):1041–1057
Richter M, Amunts K, Mohlberg H, Bludau S, Eickhoff SB, Zilles K, Caspers S (2018) Cytoarchitectonic segregation of human posterior intraparietal and adjacent parieto-occipital sulcus and its relation to visuomotor and cognitive functions. Cereb Cortex 29(3):1305–1327. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy245
Rugg MD, King DR (2018) Ventral lateral parietal cortex and episodic memory retrieval. Cortex 107:238–250
Rugg MD, Vilberg KL (2013) Brain networks underlying episodic memory retrieval. Curr Opin Neurobiol 23(2):255–260
Seghier ML (2013a) The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. Neuroscientist 19(1):43–61
Seghier ML (2013b) The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. Neuroscientist 19(1):43–61
Seghier ML, Fagan E, Price CJ (2010) Functional subdivisions in the left angular gyrus where the semantic system meets and diverges from the default network. J Neurosci 30(50):16809–16817
Seidenberg MS, McClelland JL (1989) A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychol Rev 96(4):523–568
Sestieri C, Corbetta M, Romani GL, Shulman GL (2011) Episodic memory retrieval, parietal cortex, and the default mode network: functional and topographic analyses. J Neurosci 31(12):4407–4420
Sestieri C, Shulman GL, Corbetta M (2017) The contribution of the human posterior parietal cortex to episodic memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:183–192
Shimamura AP (2011) Episodic retrieval and the cortical binding of relational activity. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 11(3):277–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0031-4
Simon O, Mangin JF, Cohen L, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S (2002) Topographical layout of hand, eye, calculation, and language-related areas in the human parietal lobe. Neuron 33(3):475–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00575-5
Simons JS, Peers PV, Hwang DY, Ally BA, Fletcher PC, Budson AE (2008) Is the parietal lobe necessary for recollection in humans? Neuropsychologia 46:1185–1191
Spreng RN, Stevens WD, Chamberlain JP, Gilmore AW, Schacter DL (2010) Default network activity, coupled with the frontoparietal control network, supports goal-directed cognition. Neuroimage 53(1):303–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.016
St. Jacques PL (2019) A new perspective on visual perspective in memory. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419850158
Stephens GJ, Honey CJ, Hasson U (2013) A place for time: the spatiotemporal structure of neural dynamics during natural audition. J Neurophysiol 110:2019–2026
Stevens MC, Calhoun VD, Kiehl KA (2005) fMRI in an oddball task: effects of target-to-target interval. Psychophysiology 42(6):636–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00368.x
St-Laurent M, Abdi H, Buchsbaum BR (2015) Distributed patterns of reactivation predict vividness of recollection. J Cogn Neurosci 27:2000–2018
Thakral PP, Wang TH, Rugg MD (2017) Decoding the content of recollection within the core recollection network and beyond. Cortex 91:101–113
Tibon R, Fuhrmann D, Levy DA, Simons JS, Henson RNA (2019) Multimodal integration and vividness in the angular gyrus during episodic encoding and retrieval. J Neurosci 39(22):4365–4374. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2102-18.2018
Tinaz S, Schendan HE, Schon K, Stern CE (2006) Evidence for the importance of basal ganglia output nuclei in semantic event sequencing: an fMRI study. Brain Res 1067(1):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.057
Tinaz S, Schendan HE, Stern CE (2008) Fronto-striatal deficit in Parkinson’s disease during semantic event sequencing. Neurobiol Aging 29(3):397–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.10.025
Uddin LQ, Supekar K, Amin H, Rykhlevskaia E, Nguyen DA, Greicius MD, Menon V (2010) Dissociable connectivity within human angular gyrus and intraparietal sulcus: evidence from functional and structural connectivity. Cereb Cortex 20(11):2636–2646. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq011
Ueno T, Saito S, Rogers TT, Lambon Ralph MA (2011) Lichtheim 2: synthesizing aphasia and the neural basis of language in a neurocomputational model of the dual dorsal-ventral language pathways. Neuron 72(2):385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.013
Vallar G (2007) Spatial neglect, Balint-Homes’ and Gerstmann’s syndrome, and other spatial disorders. CNS Spectr 12(7):527–536
Vigneau M, Beaucousin V, Herve PY, Duffau H, Crivello F, Houde O, Mazoyer B, Tzourio-Mazoyer N (2006) Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. Neuroimage 30(4):1414–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.002
Vilberg KL, Rugg MD (2008) Memory retrieval and the parietal cortex: a review of evidence from a dual-process perspective. Neuropsychologia 46(7):1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.01.004
Vilberg KL, Rugg MD (2012) The neural correlates of recollection: transient versus sustained fMRI effects. J Neurosci 32(45):15679–15687. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.3065-12.2012
Vincent JL, Kahn I, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME, Buckner RL (2008) Evidence for a frontoparietal control system revealed by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol 100(6):3328–3342. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90355.2008
Wagner AD, Shannon BJ, Kahn I, Buckner RL (2005) Parietal lobe contributions to episodic memory retrieval. Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.001
Wagner IC, van Buuren M, Kroes MCW, Gutteling TP, van der Linden M, Morris RG, Fernandes G (2015) Schematic memory components converge within angular gyrus during retrieval. Elife 4:e09668. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09668
Walsh V (2003) A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends Cogn Sci 7:483–488
Yazar Y, Bergstrom ZM, Simons JS (2014) Continuous theta burst stimulation of angular gyrus reduces subjective recollection. PLoS One 9(10):e110414
Yeo BT, Krienen FM, Chee MW, Buckner RL (2013) Estimates of segregation and overlap of functional connectivity networks in the human cerebral cortex. Neuroimage 88C:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.046
Zacks JM (2008) Neuroimaging studies of mental rotation: a meta-analysis and review. J Cogn Neurosci 20(1):1–19
G.H. is supported an MRC Programme grant (MR/R023883/1) and MRC intramural funding (MC_UU_00005/18), and R.T is supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship (PF170046: SUAI/028 RG94188). We would like to thank Matt Lambon Ralph for their helpful discussions.
G.H. is supported by an MRC Programme grant (MR/R023883/1) and MRC intramural funding (MC_UU_00005/18), and R.T is supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship (PF170046: SUAI/028 RG94188).
Conflict of interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Humphreys, G.F., Tibon, R. Dual-axes of functional organisation across lateral parietal cortex: the angular gyrus forms part of a multi-modal buffering system. Brain Struct Funct 228, 341–352 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-022-02510-0
- Angular gyrus
- Lateral parietal cortex
- Multi-modal buffering
- Temporo-spatial information