Departments of

Brain (1998),121,1985–2002

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory

Functional-MRI evidence for context-dependent retrieval processes

Anthony D.Wagner,1John E.Desmond,1,2Gary H.Glover 2and John D.E.Gabrieli 1

Departments of 1Psychology and 2Radiology,Stanford Correspondence to:Anthony Wagner,MGH-NMR Center,University,Palo Alto,USA

Bldg 149,13th Street,Mail code 149(2301),Charlestown,MA 02129–2060,USA.

E-mail:adwagner @https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,

Summary

Functional neuroimaging studies of episodic recognition memory consistently demonstrate retrieval-associated activation in right prefrontal regions,including the right anterior and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortices.In theory,these activations could re?ect processes associated with retrieval success,retrieval effort or retrieval attempt;each of these hypotheses has some support from previous studies.In Experiment 1,we examined these functional interpretations using functional MRI to measure prefrontal activation across multiple levels of recognition performance.Results revealed similar patterns of right prefrontal activation across varying levels of retrieval success and retrieval effort,suggesting that these activations re?ect retrieval attempt.Retrieval attempt may include initiation of retrieval search or evaluation of the products of retrieval,such as scrutiny of speci?c attributes of the test item in an effort to determine whether it was encountered previously.In Experiment 2,we examined whether engagement of retrieval attempt is

Keywords :episodic memory;explicit memory;prefrontal cortex;strategic processes;functional MRI

Abbreviations :AC ?anterior commissure;ANOV A ?analysis of variance;APC ?anterior prefrontal cortex;BA ?Brodmann area;DLPC ?dorsolateral prefrontal cortex;ERP ?event-related potential;fMRI ?functional MRI;rCBF ?regional cerebral blood ?ow

Introduction

Human memory consists of multiple forms of learning which differ in the component processes and neural networks that mediate their acquisition and retrieval (e.g.Cohen and Squire,1980;Graf and Schacter,1985;Roediger,1990;Tulving and Schacter,1990;Squire,1992;Gabrieli,1998).One important form of learning is episodic memory,which refers to memory for experiences that are associated with a speci?c spatial and temporal learning context (Tulving,1972,1983).Retrieval from episodic memory is thought to entail the conscious recollection of aspects of the past,and consists of multiple component processes including the representation of retrieval ?Oxford University Press 1998

context-dependent by varying the context in which retrieval was performed;this was done by changing test instructions.Importantly,study and test stimuli were held constant,with only the test instructions varying across conditions.Results revealed that the pattern of right prefrontal activation varied across retrieval contexts.Collectively,these experiments suggest that right prefrontal regions mediate processes associated with retrieval attempt,with the probability of engaging these regions depending upon the retrieval context.Con?icting results across previous studies may be reconciled if the in?uence of retrieval context on the adopted retrieval strategy is considered.Finally,these results suggest that right prefrontal regions activated during recognition are not critical for successful performance as similar magnitudes of activation were present across multiple levels of performance.These ?ndings reconcile imaging results with the selective effects of prefrontal lesions on retrieval-intensive episodic memory tests.

cues and products in working memory,the generation and initiation of a retrieval search,the recovery of information from episodic memory and the evaluation of the relevance of retrieved information to the current task goal (e.g.Raaijmakers and Shiffrin,1981).

Retrieval from episodic memory is subserved by multiple brain regions,including the prefrontal cortex.Prefrontal lesions yield strategic processing de?cits that result in select episodic retrieval impairments (Shallice,1988;Milner et al .,1991;Shimamura,1994).Functional neuroimaging studies of episodic retrieval using PET or functional MRI (fMRI)

1986 A.D.Wagner et al.

have consistently revealed retrieval-associated activations in right anterior prefrontal cortex(APC),at or near Brodmann area(BA)10,and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex(DLPC), at or near BA46and9.Both regions of activation have tended to be right lateralized,although there have been reports of left anterior activation(e.g.Schacter et al.,1996a; Tulving et al.,1996).Right APC and right DLPC activation generalizes across episodic retrieval tasks and stimulus forms, including word-stem cued recall,word and picture paired-associate recall,and recognition of faces,complex pictures, sentences and words(for reviews,see Buckner,1996;Nyberg et al.,1996a).Right APC and right DLPC activation has been reported during direct or intentional episodic retrieval but not during indirect or incidental retrieval(e.g.Squire et al.,1992;Rugg et al.,1997;Wagner et al.,1997b). Activation in these regions does not appear restricted to episodic retrieval,however,as activation has also been noted during performance of working memory tasks(e.g.Petrides et al.,1993;Fiez et al.,1996;Gabrieli et al.,1997). Three functional interpretations of retrieval-associated right prefrontal activation have been proposed.The‘retrieval-attempt’hypothesis posits that right prefrontal activation re?ects processes associated with attempts to retrieve the past(Kapur et al.,1995;Nyberg et al.,1995).Although not entirely speci?ed,attempt processes may include initiation of a retrieval search or evaluation of the products of retrieval. Importantly,the probability of engaging these processes is thought to be independent of the success of such retrieval attempts.Alternatively,right prefrontal activation may re?ect the extent of‘retrieval effort’associated with attempts to remember(Schacter et al.,1996a),with such activation increasing with increasing retrieval effort.To the extent that poor memory for events necessitates greater effort to retrieve these memories,then this hypothesis predicts that right prefrontal activation should be inversely related to retrieval success.Finally,the‘retrieval-success’hypothesis posits that right prefrontal activation is associated with processes that accompany the successful recollection of a past experience (operationalized as a‘hit’in recognition of a correct retrieval in recall;Rugg et al.,1996).Success processes may include integration of the retrieved item and contextual information or post-retrieval evaluation.Importantly,this account asserts that such processes cannot occur when retrieval has been unsuccessful.

Prior studies have failed to provide unambiguous support for any of these functional interpretations.Consistent with retrieval attempt,three PET studies of episodic recognition revealed similar right prefrontal activations across conditions varying in retrieval success(Kapur et al.,1995;Nyberg et al., 1995;Rugg et al.,1997).However,apparently contradictory results come from three PET studies of recognition that demonstrated greater right prefrontal activation with greater retrieval success(Tulving et al.,1994,1996;Rugg et al., 1996;see also Buckner et al.,1998b).Finally,a PET study of word-stem cued recall provides support for the retrieval-effort hypothesis,with anterior prefrontal activation occurring when a low success(high effort)condition was compared with baseline,but not when a high success(low effort) condition was compared with baseline(Schacter et al., 1996a).

Rugg et al.(1996)posit that these apparent inconsistencies may be reconcilable.First,they note that overall behavioural performance was poor in the Nyberg et al.(1995)study, raising the possibility that these authors may have been unable to detect success-related differences due to modest differences in success across conditions.Secondly,they posit that there is a non-linear relationship between the number of successful retrievals and prefrontal regional cerebral blood ?ow(rCBF)such that each successful retrieval elicits a nearly asymptotic rCBF response that persists for a period of time longer than the neural response due to the temporal blurring of the haemodynamic time-constant(Friston et al., 1994).From this perspective,persisting rCBF responses in low success conditions reduce the rCBF differences between high and low conditions,even though the neural responses in these two conditions are markedly different.

Although Rugg et al.(1996)suggest that previous results may be reconciled within a single retrieval-success framework,the pattern of results across previous studies raises not only the possibility that right prefrontal activation may not be tightly coupled with success,but also that it may not be entirely independent of it either.The variable pattern of results obtained across previous studies may be due to between-study differences along two critical dimensions. First,as posited by Rugg et al.(1996),the magnitude of the behavioural differences between the various levels of success may be an important consideration when attempting to examine right prefrontal activation.Secondly,it is worth noting that the test instructions provided to participants varied across studies and even across conditions within studies (e.g.Tulving et al.,1994,1996).These differences in test instructions may result in differences in the adopted retrieval strategy.Both of these factors raise the possibility that a critical component of episodic retrieval that has not been extensively considered is the context in which retrieval is performed.Speci?cally,under certain testing situations participants may be more,or less,biased to engage in extensive retrieval search or post-retrieval evaluation.As the retrieval context varies,either due to differences in retrieval success or to task expectancies that arise from the test instructions,the adopted retrieval strategy may vary.

We conducted two fMRI studies aimed at further elucidating the functional signi?cance of prefrontal activation during episodic retrieval.These studies were designed to test the attempt,effort and success hypotheses by considering the effects of performance levels and test instructions,on right prefrontal activation.In these studies,attempts were made(i)to ensure that the performance levels between conditions were considerably different,(ii)to implement conditions where the persisting-response interpretation could be functionally tested and(iii)to vary the retrieval context by varying the test instructions under which retrieval is

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory

1987

performed.In Experiment 1,right prefrontal activation was examined during ‘High’,‘Low’and ‘New’recognition conditions.In Experiment 2,test instructions were directly manipulated to consider the effects of retrieval context.

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1prefrontal activation was examined as a function of success on a recognition memory test.Three levels of success (High,Low and New)were created by (i)varying the nature of operations engaged during encoding,using a levels-of-processing technique (Craik and Lockhart,1972),and (ii)varying the density of studied items appearing on the recognition test.High performance was created by testing memory for words studied twice in a semantic manner,with target density at test being high (60out of 66test items were old).Low performance was created by testing memory for words studied once in a non-semantic manner,with target density also being high (60out of 66were old).The New condition was created by testing memory for words,the vast majority of which had not been studied,thus target density was very low (6out of 66were old).In three fMRI scans,activation during recognition (High,Low or New)was compared with that during a non-memory baseline condition consisting of silent reading of novel words (Read).In a fourth scan,blocks of High recognition success were directly compared with blocks of Low recognition success (Fig.1).The logic of this experiment parallels that of the earlier PET studies (e.g.Kapur et al .,1995;Nyberg et al .,1995;Schacter et al .,1996a ).To the extent that retrieval success markedly differs across the three recognition conditions,each functional interpretation of right prefrontal activation predicts a unique pattern of results (Table 4).To verify that levels of retrieval success would markedly differ across the High,Low and New conditions,a separate behavioural study was conducted prior to scanning,to examine recognition performance and response latencies under these

conditions.

Fig.1Schematic diagram of the four recognition test scans in Experiment 1.

Methods Participants

For the behavioural study,16volunteers (aged 18–24years)participated.Data from two participants were excluded and replaced because they failed to follow the task instructions.For the fMRI study,nine right-handed volunteers (seven female and two male,aged 19–34years)participated.Data from two additional participants were collected but excluded,one due to a susceptibility artefact and the second due to failure to follow the task instructions.All participants gave informed,written consent and were from the Stanford community.The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Stanford University.

Materials

The stimuli were 528abstract or concrete nouns (3–10letters long);half were printed in upper case and half in lower case.Eight 60-item blocks were created such that each block contained:15upper-case abstract words (e.g.‘LOVE’),15lower-case abstract words (e.g.‘hope’),15upper-case concrete words (e.g.‘SHOE’)and 15lower-case concrete words (e.g.‘dog’).Blocks were matched for word length and word frequency.The remaining items were divided into eight 6-item blocks;each block contained three abstract and three concrete words.Three were in upper case and three were in lower case letters.

Two kinds of study lists were created:Low performance and High performance.Low performance lists consisted of 123unique items,120items from two of the 60-item blocks plus three items from one of the 6-item blocks,randomly ordered once.High performance lists consisted of 123unique items,120items from two other 60-item blocks plus the other three items from the one 6-item block;the 123items appeared once in a random order and then a second time in a new random order.

1988 A.D.Wagner et al.

Four132-item test lists were created;each contained12 test blocks of11items each.Six of the test blocks consisted of a random sequence of10items from a given60-item block plus one item from a given6-item block.The other six test blocks consisted of items from a different60-item block and a different6-item block.Each test list alternated back and forth six times between the two kinds of test blocks. The four test lists were presented in the same?xed order. When combined with the study lists,there were four kinds of test conditions.The Low–Read sequence alternated between blocks of10studied items from the Low study list plus one unstudied item and blocks of11unstudied items.The High–Read sequence alternated between blocks of10studied items from the High study list plus one unstudied item and blocks of11unstudied items.The New–Read sequence alternated between blocks of10unstudied items plus one studied item (across the six blocks,three were Low and three were High) and blocks of11unstudied items.The High–Low sequence alternated between blocks of10studied items from the High study list plus one unstudied item and blocks of10studied items from the Low study list plus one unstudied item.The following counterbalancing was performed across participants:(i)each test condition appeared in each of the four possible test positions(?rst,second,third and fourth); (ii)the order of the two kinds of blocks in each test condition was counterbalanced(i.e.the Low and Read conditions were paired as Low–Read and as Read–Low);and(iii)items were counterbalanced across the High,Low,New and Read blocks. Behavioural study procedure

The experiment consisted of two study phases,followed by four‘yes–no’recognition tests.A Low performance phase was immediately followed by a High performance phase.For both,individual words appeared centrally on a computer screen for2000ms,each followed by a400-ms inter-stimulus interval.In the Low study phase,participants judged whether each word was printed in upper-case or lower-case letters. Half of the participants responded to words in upper case by pressing the slash key(‘/’)on the keyboard and did not respond otherwise,and half responded to words in lower case with the slash key.In the High study phase,participants judged whether the word represented an abstract or concrete concept;half were instructed to respond to abstract words and half responded to concrete words.Words on the High study list appeared twice in a spaced manner.

Following this study,participants advanced to four test conditions(Fig.1).For all conditions,individual words again appeared centrally(2000ms on;400-ms inter-stimulus interval).The High–Read,Low–Read and New–Read test conditions consisted of six alternating-task cycles;each alternated between blocks of a recognition memory task and blocks of a reading baseline task.The fourth condition,High–Low,consisted of six alternations between blocks of High and Low recognition.Prior to High and Low blocks,an instruction cue was presented(‘Task—Old’).Participants were instructed to determine whether each presented test item had been previously studied,and to respond if they recognized the word as studied.Prior to New blocks,an instruction cue was presented(‘Task—New’).Again, participants were instructed to determine whether each test item had been previously studied(but,to control for the number of motor responses across conditions,participants were instructed to respond if they failed to recognize the item).Prior to Read blocks,an instruction card was presented (‘Task–Read’).Participants were instructed to read each word silently to themselves,and to respond upon completion.The computer recorded responses and response latencies. fMRI study procedure

Imaging was performed with a 1.5-T whole-body MRI scanner(General Electric Medical Systems Signa,Rev.5.5, Waukesha,USA).Two5-inch-diameter local receive coils were bilaterally positioned over the prefrontal cortex to obtain the activation signal.Head movement was minimized by using a‘bite bar’formed with each participant’s dental impression.A T2*-sensitive gradient echo spiral sequence (Noll et al.,1995;Glover and Lai,1998),which is relatively insensitive to pulsatility motion artefacts(Glover and Lee, 1995),was used for functional imaging[repetition time (TR)?720ms;echo time(TE)?40ms;?ip angle?65°]. For each scan,120images were acquired continuously over a346-s session from each of eight coronal slices(6mm thick;1-mm inter-slice space;2.35-mm in-plane resolution) situated14–63mm rostral to the anterior commissure(AC). Four interleaves were obtained for each image,with a total acquisition time of 2.88s per image.T1-weighted,?ow compensated spin-warp anatomy images(TR?500ms; minimum TE)were acquired for all sections imaged during the functional scans.

Prior to functional data collection,participants were engaged in the Low and High study phases coincident with acquisition of T1-weighted sagittal localizer and in-plane anatomy images.Following the study period,functional scans were conducted during performance of the four recognition test conditions.Participants responded by pressing a pneumatic bulb.Stimuli were generated from a computer and back-projected onto a screen located above the participant’s neck;visual images were viewed in a mirror mounted above the participant’s head.

fMRI data analysis

Image reconstruction was performed off-line by transferring the raw data to a Sun SparcStation(Sun Microsystems, Mountain View,Calif.,USA).The data were resampled into a Cartesian matrix and then processed with a2D fast Fourier transform.Once individual images were reconstructed,the time series from each pixel was correlated with a reference waveform.The reference waveform was calculated by convolving a square wave representing the time course of

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory1989

the alternating task conditions with a data-derived estimate of the haemodynamic response function(Friston et al.,1994). For the present study,the task frequency was~0.017Hz (six cycles over346s).The resulting correlations were transformed into a Z-score map(SPM{Z})(Friston et al., 1994).Because this study tests particular hypotheses,pixels that satis?ed the criterion of Z? 1.96(representing signi?cance at P?0.05,two-tailed)were selected and overlaid on the corresponding T1-weighted structural image. For display purposes,the SPMs were processed with a median?lter with spatial width of3pixels to emphasize spatially coherent patterns of activation.

To analyse functional activation across participants,the SPM{Z}maps were averaged.Each section from each participant was transformed onto a corresponding standardized coronal section(Talairach and Tournoux,1988) at the same distance rostral to the AC(see Desmond et al., 1995).Following transformation,the average Z-score for each pixel in a section was computed across participants, and pixels that reached a statistical threshold of P?0.05(two-tailed)were displayed on each map.Stereotaxic coordinates for clusters of activation within these averaged SPMs(statistical parametric maps)were obtained using the coordinate system of the Talairach and Tournoux(1988) atlas.Activations exceeding a cluster size threshold of two pixels are described,with the reported coordinates corresponding to the centroid of the cluster.The maximum Z-score for each cluster is also reported.

To assess the pattern of activation across levels of recognition performance(High,Low and New),further analyses were conducted on‘regions of interest’identi?ed as regions signi?cantly associated with recognition at the group level:bilateral APC,right DLPC,bilateral frontal opercular cortex,medial prefrontal cortex and bilateral posterior inferior frontal gyrus.These anatomical regions were identi?ed in each individual participant,and the regions of interest were speci?ed as the subset of pixels within the region that demonstrated greater activation during any of the recognition conditions relative to the baseline for that individual.Once these regions of interest were speci?ed,the mean Z-score across the region of interest was determined for each participant for each condition.For each region of interest,an analysis of variance(ANOV A)was performed to determine whether the magnitude of activation within the region varied systematically across the levels of recognition performance.Further,a t test was conducted on the mean Z-score over each region of interest from the High versus Low comparison to determine whether this value systematically differed from zero.

Results

Behavioural results

The behavioural and fMRI studies yielded performance results from?ve memory conditions:High(High–Read),Low(Low–Read)and New(New–Read)in the context of the reading(Read)baseline,and High(High–Low)and Low (Low–High)in the context of each other(Table1).Unless otherwise indicated,anα-level of0.05was used for all statistical tests.The results revealed considerable differences in retrieval success(indexed by the number of hits)and retrieval effort(indexed by recognition accuracy and response latency)across the recognition conditions.

Numbers of hits and false alarms

Retrieval success declined across the conditions from High to Low to New.Hits were greater than false alarms [behavioural study F(1,15)?1257.68;fMRI study F(1,8)?110.30].There was a signi?cant memory-condition?item-type interaction[behavioural study F(4,60)?252.15;fMRI study F(4,32)?135.19];hits were greater in the High–Read than the Low–Read conditions[behavioural study F(1,15)?1149.68;fMRI study F(1,8)?229.34]which were,in turn, greater than those in the New–Read condition[behavioural study F(1,15)?51.58;fMRI study F(1,8)?28.64],whereas false alarms were greater in the New–Read than in the High–Read conditions[behavioural study F(1,15)?9.42;fMRI study F(1,8)?34.65]which,in turn,did not differ from those in the Low–Read condition(both F?1.0).Neither hits nor false alarms differed between the High–Read and High–Low conditions(both F? 1.04),nor between the Low–Read and Low–High conditions(both F?1.0). Accuracy

Accuracy(P hits–P false alarms)differed across the memory conditions[behavioural study F(4,60)?62.41;fMRI study F(4,32)?24.05];accuracy was superior in the High–Read condition than in the New–Read condition[behavioural study F(1,15)?16.02;fMRI study F(1,8)?9.36]which was,in turn,superior to that in the Low–Read condition[behavioural study F(1,15)?36.42;fMRI study F(1,8)?10.37].Accuracy was higher in the High–Low than in the High–Read condition in the behavioural study[F(1,15)?4.71],whereas it was comparable in these conditions in the fMRI study(F?1.0). In both studies,accuracy was similar across the Low–High and the Low–Read conditions(both F?1.0). Response latencies

Response latencies were only collected during the behavioural study.They differed across the memory conditions[F(4,60)?8.12];mean median reaction times were shorter in the High–Read than in the New–Read condition[F(1,15)? 6.39] which,in turn,were shorter than those in the Low–Read condition[F(1,15)?4.25].Response latencies were similar in the High–Read and High–Low conditions(F?1.0),and in the Low–Read and Low–High conditions[F(1,15)?1.42, P?0.20].Thus,both accuracy and response latency measures

1990 A.D.Wagner et al.

Table1Experiment1:recognition performance from behavioural and fMRI studies

Test condition

High–Read Low–Read New–Read High–Low Low–High Behavioural study

Hits0.92(55.2)0.25(15.2)0.59(3.6)0.91(54.8)0.27(16.2) False alarms0.22(1.3)0.08(0.5)0.10(6.3)0.10(0.6)0.10(0.6) Accuracy0.700.170.490.820.18 Reaction time(ms)798.7958.8886.8804.2917.2

fMRI study

Hits0.77(46.3)0.25(14.9)0.63(3.8)0.81(48.4)0.24(14.3) False alarms0.11(0.7)0.09(0.6)0.22(12.9)0.07(0.4)0.11(0.7) Accuracy0.660.160.420.730.13 Numbers in parentheses correspond to the raw number of hits and false alarms for each condition.

Table2Experiment1:regions of increased activation during episodic recognition

Region Talairach coordinates Z max BA

x y z

High?Read

Medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate–22141 6.366,8,32

R anterior prefrontal32562 5.3110,11

R dorsolateral prefrontal463519 5.1046,9

R posterior inferior prefrontal411435 4.509,8,44

R frontal operculum3521–3 4.3247

L posterior inferior prefrontal–441431 3.669,8,44

L frontal operculum–31214 3.6047

L anterior prefrontal–43491 3.3610

Low?Read

R frontal operculum3621–1 5.7047

R anterior prefrontal2956–7 5.4610,11

L frontal operculum–30213 5.1347

Medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate–22141 4.986,8,32

L posterior inferior prefrontal–431428 4.629,8,44

R dorsolateral prefrontal453518 4.3546,9

R posterior inferior prefrontal401432 3.939,8

New?Read

R anterior prefrontal2656–6 5.8510,11

R frontal operculum3421–3 4.9547

Medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate22137 4.746,8,32

L posterior inferior prefrontal–441427 3.699,8,44

R posterior inferior prefrontal391435 3.429,8

R dorsolateral prefrontal443518 2.7946,9

R?right;L?left.

indicate that retrieval effort differed across the High,Low and New conditions.

The fMRI results

Analysis of the functional data revealed greater activation in a number of prefrontal cortical regions during recognition relative to baseline,including the right APC and right DLPC(Table2).Region-of-interest analyses revealed that the magnitudes of activation across the three levels of performance(High,Low and New)relative to baseline were comparable(Table3).These results are inconsistent with predictions from the retrieval-success and retrieval-effort hypotheses,and are generally consistent with those from the retrieval-attempt perspective(Table4).Importantly,the demonstration of activation in the New condition cannot be accounted for by the success hypothesis.

Right APC

In all three scans in which recognition was compared with the baseline condition,recognition resulted in greater right APC activation(Fig.2).Right APC activation extended approximately from49–63mm rostral to the AC,and was situated in the right middle frontal gyrus,frontomarginal sulcus and lateral orbital sulcus(at or near BA10and11;

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory1991 Table3Experiment1:mean Z-score for each region of interest and level of recognition

performance

Mean Z-score across region of interest

New–Read Low–Read High–Read High–Low

R anterior prefrontal 1.41 1.30 1.910.19

L anterior prefrontal0.95 1.18 1.560.13

R dorsolateral prefrontal 1.53 1.56 1.740.07

R frontal operculum 1.46 1.70 1.65–0.03

L frontal operculum 1.23 1.48 1.45–0.01

Medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate 1.47 1.63 1.76–0.05

R posterior inferior prefrontal 1.37 1.52 1.830.22

L posterior inferior prefrontal 1.22 1.59 1.630.09

R?right;L?left.

Table4Experiment1:predicted and resulting pattern of right APC and right DLPC activation

Hypothesis Predicted pattern from

behavioural results

Retrieval success

Number of hits High?Low?New?Read Retrieval effort

Accuracy(inversely related)Low?New?High?Read Response latency Low?New?High?Read Retrieval attempt

Independent of performance High?Low?New?Read

Actual functional results

Right APC activation High?Low?New?Read Right DLPC activation High?Low?New?Read Table2).At the group level,this frontopolar activation appeared to be greater in the High–Read comparison than in the Low–Read and New–Read comparisons.To assess whether this difference was systematic across subjects,the mean Z-score for the right APC region was computed for the High–Read,Low–Read and New–Read comparisons for each participant.The region-of-interest analysis indicated that the memory condition did not systematically affect the magnitude of right APC activation[F(2,16)?1.43,P?0.25; Table3].Consistent with this?nding,the High–Low scan failed to reveal a signi?cant difference in right APC activation;the region-of-interest analysis demonstrated no difference either[t(8)?1.25,P?0.25].

At the group level,a signi?cant cluster of retrieval-associated activation was present in the left APC only in the High–Read comparison.However,as with the right APC, there was considerable individual variability in the pattern of activation across memory conditions,with the region-of-interest analysis failing to reveal an effect of memory condition[F(2,16)?1.15,P?0.30;Table3].Further,the High–Low scan failed to reveal a signi?cant difference in left APC activation,and the region-of-interest analysis demonstrated no difference either[t(8)?0.86,P?0.40].Right DLPC

All levels of recognition resulted in greater right DLPC activation relative to baseline(Fig.2),with this activation situated in right middle frontal gyrus and inferior frontal sulcus(at or near BA46,9;Table2)extending approximately from28–35mm rostral to the AC.At the group level,the magnitude of this activation appeared to decline across the High–Read,Low–Read and New–Read comparisons. However,there was considerable individual variability in the pattern of activation across the three memory conditions.The region-of-interest analysis indicated no effect of memory condition(F?1.0;Table3).The High–Low scan failed to reveal a signi?cant difference in right DLPC activation,and the region-of-interest analysis demonstrated no difference either[t(8)?0.84,P?0.40].

Other regions demonstrating retrieval-associated activation

Recognition resulted in greater activation in bilateral frontal opercular cortex,medial prefrontal cortex(near the anterior cingulate)and bilateral posterior inferior frontal gyrus relative to baseline(Fig.2).For all regions,the region-of-interest analysis indicated that the memory condition did not affect the magnitude of activation(all F?1.05,P?0.35;Table 3).Further,the High–Low scan failed to reveal a signi?cant difference in any region,with the region-of-interest analysis also demonstrating no differences(all P values?0.10). Frontal opercular activation was present in the anterior insular and inferior frontal cortices(at or near BA47)situated approximately21–28mm rostral to the AC(Table2). Although previous studies of episodic retrieval have demonstrated activation in this region(e.g.Buckner et al., 1995,1996),frontal opercular activation is not speci?c to episodic retrieval as activation has been noted during performance of other tasks,including:(i)semantic classi?cation of words(e.g.Wagner et al.,1997a);(ii)target detection of auditorily presented verbal and non-verbal stimuli (Fiez et al.,1995);and(iii)maintenance of verbal material in working memory(e.g.Desmond et al.,1996;Fiez et al.,

1992 A.D.Wagner et al

.

Fig.2Composite coronal images of activation in three sections corresponding to ?21,?35and ?56mm rostral to the AC.Each column displays the composite from one section (indicated at the bottom),and each row displays data from one condition (indicated above).All composites re?ect Z -scores averaged across all participants.Regions that show greater activation during the memory

condition relative to the reading baseline are overlaid on the corresponding coronal section from the stereotaxic atlas of Talairach and Tournoux (1988).In all conditions,greater activation was present in right APC (A),right DLPC (B),medial prefrontal cortex near the anterior cingulate (C)and bilateral frontal opercular cortex (D).For all ?gures,the left side of the image corresponds to the left side of the brain.

1996).The functional signi?cance of frontal opercular activations has yet to be resolved;one suggestion is that this region mediates a high-level articulatory or phonological coding (Fiez et al.,1995),which may differ across the recognition and reading of words.

Posterior inferior frontal activation was present bilaterally in inferior frontal gyrus,middle frontal gyrus and inferior frontal sulcus (at or near BA 9,8and 44)situated approximately 14–21mm rostral to the AC.The location of this activation in the left hemisphere falls near the region frequently visualized during phonological working memory tasks (e.g.Awh et al.,1996)and has been previously visualized during episodic retrieval of verbal stimuli (e.g.Buckner et al.,1996;Wagner et al.,1997d ).This activation is consistent with the possibility that the phonological and articulatory demands were greater during recognition relative to baseline.

Medial superior frontal cortex activation bordered the anterior cingulate (at or near BA 6,8and 32)and was situated approximately 14–21mm rostral to the AC.As with frontal opercular activation,previous PET studies of episodic and semantic retrieval have visualized activation in a similar region (e.g.Raichle et al.,1994).This medial prefrontal region may correspond to the anterior extent of the supplementary motor area,or pre-supplementary motor area (Picard and Strick,1996),and may mediate the internal

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory1993

generation of motor programmes required for responding (e.g.Buckner et al.,1996).The functional signi?cance of this activation within the context of retrieval is not yet known. Regions of decreased activation

Two regions of decreased activation were present across all three memory conditions relative to baseline.Posteriorly, there was a decrease in the left middle frontal gyrus(at or near BA8,9and46)situated approximately14–28mm rostral to the AC(with High–Read,Z max?–4.29for cluster x,y,z?–44,28,31,and Z max?–3.48for–38,21,43;

with Low–Read,Z max?–4.23for–42,28,30,and Z max?–3.60for–40,21,41;with New–Read,Z max?–4.08for –42,28,29,and Z max?–4.41for–34,21,50).Anteriorly, there was a decrease in medial orbital frontal cortex(at or near BA10,32),situated approximately42–49mm rostral to the AC(with High–Read,Z max?–5.28for–5,49,–3; with Low–Read,Z max?–5.01for–4,49,–5;with New–Read,Z max?–4.05for–5,49,–4).

Experiment2

The results of Experiment1are consistent with studies supporting right prefrontal activation as a re?ection of retrieval attempt,rather than retrieval success or effort. Resolution of between-study inconsistencies is critical to understanding the functional contributions of right prefrontal activation.We propose that the retrieval context plays a pivotal role in in?uencing the nature of processing engaged during retrieval.Depending on the retrieval context, participants may be more or less biased to engage in extensive retrieval search or post-retrieval evaluation.Aspects of the retrieval context that may in?uence the probability of engaging in these processes include on-line monitoring of retrieval performance and expectations that arise from test instructions.For example,in two previous studies supporting the retrieval-success interpretation,participants were provided with different instructions during the high and low success conditions(Tulving et al.,1994,1996).An alternative interpretation of the results from these studies is that different retrieval strategies were adopted in the old and new test contexts because of the differences in test instructions(see below).

In Experiment2we tested the hypothesis that right prefrontal activation re?ects the strategic search or post-retrieval evaluative processes postulated by attempt theories, and that the probability of engaging in these processes varies across retrieval contexts.In two scans,High and New recognition were directly compared(Fig.3).In the High–New(Standard1)scan,recognition took place in the context of‘standard’test instructions(i.e.by determining whether the test item was old,as in Experiment1).The‘1’denotes the number of new and old items in the High and New blocks,respectively.In the High–New(Biasing1)scan, recognition took place in the context of‘biasing’test instructions.These instructions,modelled after those of Tulving et al.(1994,1996),informed participants of the relative probabilities of old and new items in each condition. In the High condition,participants were instructed to monitor for the few new items;in the New condition,participants were instructed to monitor for the few old items.Importantly, the study conditions and test materials were identical in these two scans,with the critical difference being the test instructions provided.

In Experiment2the success hypothesis(Rugg et al.,1996) was further examined.Demonstration of right prefrontal activation in the New condition in Experiment1is inconsistent with this hypothesis.In Experiment2,two standard-instruction scans[High–New(Standard1)and High–New(Standard0)]were used to compare High and New conditions directly.The New condition in the High–New(Standard0)scan was a pure condition(each block consisted of11new items).To the extent that right prefrontal activation re?ects retrieval success,both scans should reveal greater right prefrontal activation in the High than the New condition.

Methods

Participants

Six right-handed volunteers(two females and four males) from the Stanford community(aged19–30years)participated. All participants gave informed,written consent. Materials and procedure

The stimuli were a subset of those used in Experiment1. Two study lists were created;each consisted of192unique items,180items from three of the60-item blocks plus12 items from two of the6-item blocks.Three132-item test lists were created in a manner identical to that in Experiment 1.There were three test conditions.The High–New (Standard1)and High–New(Biasing1)sequences alternated between blocks of10studied items plus one unstudied item and blocks of10unstudied items plus one studied item,and the High–New(Standard0)sequence alternated between blocks of10studied items plus one unstudied item and blocks of11unstudied items.Across participants,the test position of the High–New(Standard1)and High–New (Standard0)conditions was?rst and second equally often. The imaging procedure was identical to that in Experiment 1,with the exceptions that(i)a prototype whole-head receive coil was used for?ve participants and local receive coils were used for one participant,and(ii)for two participants, functional images were corrected for motion-related artefacts using the automated image registration algorithm for the in-plane dimensions(AIR2.0;Woods et al.,1992).The study phase consisted of‘abstract versus concrete’decisions for words presented twice in a spaced manner.Three recognition scans were conducted(Fig.3).In the High–New(Standard1)

1994 A.D.Wagner et al

.

Fig.3Schematic diagram of the three recognition test scans in Experiment 2.

Table 5Experiment 2:recognition performance

Performance condition High (S1)

New (S1)High (B1)New (B1)High (S0)New (S0)Hits

0.90(54.2)0.89(5.3)0.86(51.4)0.81(4.8)0.85(50.8)–

False alarms 0.11(0.7)0.10(6.2)0.28(1.7)0.05(3.2)0.06(0.3)0.09(5.8)Accuracy

0.79

0.79

0.58

0.75

0.79

–

High (S1)and New (S1)are from the High–New (Standard 1)condition;High (B1)and New (B1)are from the High–New (Biasing 1)condition;High (S0)and New (S0)are from the High–New (Standard 0)condition.Numbers in parentheses correspond to the raw number of hits and false alarms for each condition.

and High–New (Standard 0)scans,the instructions for High and New blocks were identical to those in Experiment 1.In the High–New (Biasing 1)scan,participants were informed of the nature of the test blocks.Prior to High blocks,an instruction cue was presented (‘Task–New’)which informed the participant that the majority of the test words would be studied,but that there would be a minority of new,unstudied items.Participants were instructed to note the appearance of these new items by making a response.Prior to New blocks,an instruction cue was presented (‘Task–Old’)which informed the participant that the majority of the test words would be new,but that there would be a minority of old,studied items.Participants were instructed to note the appearance of these studied items by making a response.Due to concerns that the biasing instructions might have an impact on subsequent performance in the standard conditions,the High–New (Biasing 1)scan was always performed last.

Results

Behavioural results

The three scans yielded performance measures for six memory conditions:High (Standard 1),New (Standard 1),High (Biasing 1),New (Biasing 1),High (Standard 0)and New (Standard 0).The results revealed considerably more hits in the High than in the New conditions,and lower accuracy in the High (Biasing 1)condition (Table 5).

Numbers of hits and false alarms

A two ?two ?two repeated-measures ANOV A [instructions (Standard 1and Biasing 1)?memory condition ?item type]on the data from the High–New (Standard 1)and High–New (Biasing 1)conditions revealed that hits were greater than false alarms [F (1,5)?232.10].The memory-condi-tion ?item-type interaction was signi?cant [F (1,5)?226.61];hits were greater in the High than in the New conditions [F (1,5)?367.75],whereas false alarms were marginally greater in the New than in the High conditions [F (1,5)?4.46,P ?0.10].

Accuracy

A two ?two repeated-measures ANOV A (instructions ?memory-condition)on the data from the High–New (Standard 1)and High–New (Biasing 1)conditions revealed that accuracy did not differ across instructions [F (1,5)?3.09,P ?0.10]or across memory condition [F (1,5)?1.03,P ?0.35].However,the instructions ?memory-condition interaction was reliable [F (1,5)?8.10];accuracy was similar in the High (Standard 1)and New (Standard 1)conditions (F ?1.0),but lower in the High (Biasing 1)than in the New (Biasing 1)condition [F (1,5)?15.22].An analysis of hits and false alarms revealed that this accuracy difference re?ects a signi?cantly greater false alarm rate in the High (Biasing 1)condition [F (1,5)?50.36].A separate analysis of recognition

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory1995

accuracy in the High(Standard1)and High(Standard0) conditions revealed no difference between these two conditions(P?0.50).

The fMRI results

The pattern of right prefrontal activation varied across retrieval contexts;right prefrontal activation did not differ across High and New recognition under standard instructions, whereas under biasing instructions it was greater during the High condition.These results suggest that:(i)right prefrontal activation does not re?ect retrieval success and that failures to reveal activation when comparing conditions of differing frequencies of success do not re?ect a persisting-response mechanism;(ii)retrieval attempt is an incomplete account of retrieval-associated right prefrontal activation;and(iii) right prefrontal activation is sensitive to retrieval context, with recruitment of retrieval-attempt processes varying across contexts.

Right APC

Right APC activation did not differ across conditions when standard instructions were given[High–New(Standard1) and High–New(Standard0)],but was greater during the High condition when biasing instructions were given[High–New(Biasing1);Figs4and5].Five participants demonstrated activation in the anterior extent of the right middle frontal gyrus,in the frontomarginal sulcus and in the lateral orbital gyrus(at or near BA10and11),situated approximately56–63mm rostral to the AC(Table6).The sixth participant demonstrated no difference in any prefrontal region in any scan comparison.To examine the pattern of right APC activation across the three scan comparisons,a repeated-measures ANOV A was conducted on the mean Z-scores for the right APC region of interest[scan comparisons:High–New(Standard1),High–New(Standard0)and High–New (Biasing1)].This region-of-interest analysis revealed a marginally signi?cant effect of scan comparison[F(2,5)?2.89,P?0.10;Table6];there was a trend towards a greater right APC activation in the High–New(Biasing1)contrast compared with the High–New(Standard1)contrast[F(1,5)?3.53,P?0.10],and a greater activation in the High–New (Biasing1)contrast compared with the High–New(Standard 0)contrast[F(1,5)?5.01].The High–New(Standard1)and High–New(Standard0)conditions did not differ(F?1.0).When the region-of-interest analysis was re-computed excluding the participant who failed to demonstrate activation in any scan,the main effect was signi?cant[F(2,4)?6.71]: there was a greater right APC activation in the High–New (Biasing1)contrast compared with the High–New(Standard 1)contrast[F(1,4)?11.44],and compared with the High–New(Standard0)contrast[F(1,4)?8.47].Again,the High–New(Standard1)and High–New(Standard0)conditions did not differ from each other(F?1.0).Right DLPC

In the standard-instruction scans,right DLPC activation did not differ across conditions(Fig.4).In contrast,there was greater activation in a focal region of right DLPC during the High condition when recognition was performed under biasing instructions.This activation in the right middle frontal gyrus(at or near BA9and46)was situated approximately 28–35mm rostral to the AC(Table6).A repeated measures ANOV A was conducted on the mean Z-scores for the right DLPC region of interest(Table6).This region-of-interest analysis revealed a signi?cant effect of scan comparison [F(2,5)?6.52];there was a greater activation in the High–New(Biasing1)contrast compared with the High–New (Standard1)contrast[F(1,5)?7.06],and compared with the High–New(Standard0)contrast[F(1,5)?11.87]. The High–New(Standard1)and High–New(Standard0) conditions did not differ from each other(F?1.0).Exclusion of the participant who failed to demonstrate activation in any scan did not change this pattern.No other prefrontal region demonstrated a signi?cant difference in activation in any of the three scans.

General discussion

In these two fMRI studies we examined right prefrontal activation across recognition conditions that varied in retrieval success,retrieval effort and retrieval context.The results of both experiments are inconsistent with the retrieval-success and retrieval-effort hypotheses,at least as initially postulated, as neither success nor effort systematically affected the pattern of activation in the right APC and right DLPC.The results are generally consistent with the retrieval-attempt hypothesis;those from Experiment2indicate that retrieval attempt is not constant across all episodic retrieval situations. Rather,the probability of engaging attempt processes is context-dependent.These results contribute to a growing body of seemingly contradictory?ndings;between-study differences in memory performance and persisting success-induced haemodynamic responses have been posited to account for these inconsistencies(Rugg et al.,1996). However,the present experiments suggest that neither is a likely candidate for resolving the variability of right prefrontal activation across studies.Consideration of the in?uence of retrieval context on the adopted retrieval strategy may serve to reconcile these inconsistencies.

Levels of recognition performance

The present studies are inconsistent with the retrieval-success hypothesis for the following reasons:(i)comparison of New blocks with baseline revealed right prefrontal activation even though there were only3.8successful retrievals in the New condition(Experiment1);(ii)two different comparisons of New and High conditions failed to demonstrate differential right prefrontal activation even though there were over50

1996 A.D.Wagner et al

.

Fig.4Composite coronal images of activation in two sections corresponding to ?35and ?63mm rostral to the AC.Each row displays the composite from one section (indicated at left),and each column displays data from one condition (indicated at top).All composites re?ect Z -scores averaged across all participants.Regions that show greater activation during the High condition relative to the New condition are overlaid on the corresponding coronal section.Greater right APC (A)and right DLPC (B)activation was present in the High condition only during the Biasing instructions scan.

successful retrievals in the High conditions and only 5.3or zero successful retrievals in the New conditions (Experiment 2,standard instructions);(iii)High,Low and New conditions produced a similar pattern of right prefrontal activation when compared with baseline,even though retrieval success markedly differed (Experiment 1);and (iv)comparison of High and Low conditions failed to demonstrate differential right prefrontal activation even though there were 34more successful retrievals in the High condition (Experiment 1).These results indicate that retrieval success is not a necessary condition for right prefrontal activation,and that the magnitude of activation in these regions is not directly tied to the frequency of retrieval success.

Previous reports of similar right prefrontal activation across differing levels of retrieval success may be partially attributable to overall poor levels of memory performance (Rugg et al.,1996).However,the present experiments rule out this interpretation as similar right prefrontal activation was present across conditions where memory behaviour differed markedly.In Experiment 1,there was a substantial decline in the number of successful retrievals from the High

(46.3)to Low (14.9)to New (3.8)conditions.In Experiment 2,there were signi?cantly more successful retrievals in the High (Standard 1)and High (Standard 0)conditions (54.2and 50.8,respectively)relative to the New (Standard 1)and New (Standard 0)conditions (5.3and zero,respectively).In neither case did different levels of retrieval success result in reliable differences in right prefrontal activation.

The persisting-response interpretation and retrieval success

Rugg et al.(1996)also posit that previous demonstrations of similar activation in comparisons of high and low success conditions are not due to an insensitivity of the right prefrontal cortices to retrieval success,but to temporal blurring of success-induced haemodynamic responses.The present results are inconsistent with this interpretation:(i)it seems unlikely that the right prefrontal activation observed when comparing New with baseline conditions is the product of persisting responses to the 3.8retrieved items in the New

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory

1997

Fig.5Functional activation maps for one anterior section from each of three participants (S01,S02and S03).Each column displays data from one section from one participant (indicated below each column),and each row displays data from one condition (indicated above each row).None of the subjects showed signi?cant differences in right APC activation in the High versus Low condition comparison under Standard instructions (top row),but all three showed greater activation during the High condition under Biasing instructions (bottom row).

Table 6Experiment 2:regions of increased activation during High (relative to New)recognition

Region

Talairach coordinates Z max

BA

Mean Z -score across region of interest

x

y z High ?New (Biasing 1)Right APC 2063–9 3.2810,11 1.70Right DLPC

37

35

35

2.77

9,46

1.53High ?New (Standard 1)Right APC No differential activation 0.94Right DLPC

No differential activation 0.85High ?New (Standard 0)Right APC No differential activation 0.80Right DLPC

No differential activation

0.65

condition (Experiment 1);(ii)it seems unlikely that persistence of the responses to 5.3successful retrievals in the New (Standard 1)condition could produce activation that did not differ from that produced by 54.2successful retrievals in the High (Standard 1)condition (Experiment 2);and (iii)failure to visualize activation when comparing High (Standard 0)and New (Standard 0)conditions cannot be attributed to persisting activation as there were no successful retrievals in the New (Standard 0)condition (Experiment 2).

The persisting-response interpretation also is inconsistent

1998 A.D.Wagner et al.

with a linear haemodynamic response model(Boynton et al., 1996;Dale and Buckner,1997).The persisting-response interpretation posits that,although the neural response of right prefrontal cortices is linearly related to retrieval success, the haemodynamic response is not a linear function of the neural response.This suggestion is not supported by demonstrations that the haemodynamic response,at least as measured by fMRI blood oxygen level dependent signal, operates approximately as a shift-invariant linear system such that the observed signal elicited by a number of events is closely approximated by the sum of the signals elicited by each event(Boynton et al.,1996;Dale and Buckner,1997). Thus,temporal blurring of success-induced responses does not appear to be the source of results that are consistent with the retrieval-attempt hypothesis.

Additional evidence that right prefrontal activation is not dependent on retrieval success comes from an event-related fMRI study that examined right prefrontal haemodynamic responses associated with recognition judgements for new and old words presented in an intermixed manner at test (Buckner et al.,1998a).In that study,new items correctly identi?ed as new,and old items correctly identi?ed as old, elicited similar haemodynamic responses in the right APC. This?nding complements the present demonstrations that right prefrontal activation is greater when comparing New recognition with the baseline,and does not differ when comparing New and High recognition conditions under standard test instructions.Collectively,these data provide strong evidence indicating that retrieval success is not necessary for retrieval-associated right prefrontal activation. Retrieval context affects right prefrontal activation

Consideration of the context in which retrieval is conducted may provide a framework for reconciling the apparently contradictory results across studies.Experiment2revealed two different patterns of right prefrontal activation,one consistent with retrieval success and the other consistent with retrieval attempt,in a single group of participants under conditions where the encoding and the test stimuli were held constant and only the retrieval context varied.Differences in the pattern of activation across studies may re?ect across-study differences in retrieval context.

The hypothesis that the processes engaged during retrieval vary across retrieval contexts builds upon the attempt hypothesis.The original formulation of the retrieval-attempt hypothesis implies that these processes will be similarly engaged across all conditions requiring episodic retrieval (Kapur et al.,1995;Nyberg et al.,1995).This position is most strongly asserted during characterization of attempt as retrieval mode,which is thought to be a state change associated with thinking back in time;retrieval mode‘sets the stage’for the recovery of speci?c episodes from long-term memory(e.g.Wheeler et al.,1997).The present results are inconsistent with this formulation of retrieval attempt as a context-invariant state change.Rather,these results extend the attempt interpretation by demonstrating that engagement of attempt processes varies across retrieval contexts.

Why did the standard and biasing retrieval contexts produce different patterns of activation?One possibility is that the biasing instructions induced different retrieval strategies in the High and New conditions,whereas the standard instructions induced the same strategy in the two conditions.By informing participants in the New(Biasing1)condition that most of the test items would be new and that their task is to identify the few old items,participants may have adopted a retrieval strategy of only assessing the relative familiarity of each test probe(e.g.Jacoby,1991).The old items were probably considerably more familiar than the new items due to their having been conceptually processed during learning(Wagner et al.,1997c)and they may therefore have been more easily discriminable through familiarity alone.Such a strategy would render an organized retrieval search,or careful evaluation of the products of retrieval,unnecessary.In contrast,under conditions where participants are aware that most stimuli will be old[High(Biasing1)],or where they have no expectations about the nature of the test lists(the standard instructions conditions),participants may engage in search and evaluative retrieval processes during each recognition attempt.This interpretation assumes that it is easier to discriminate a familiar item from a group of unfamiliar items, than it is to discriminate an unfamiliar item from a group of familiar items.The behavioural data provide some support for this interpretation,as participants were signi?cantly less accurate in the High(Biasing1)condition. Alternatively,the biasing instructions may have increased the probability of retrieval attempts in the High(Biasing1) condition.Participants were signi?cantly less accurate in this condition,frequently failing to identify the new items.The biasing instructions,however,informed participants that they should be able to identify a few of the test probes as new.Such performance expectations may have encouraged participants to persist in their retrieval attempts even when those attempts met with failure.In contrast,participants probably did not have expectations about the nature of the test lists under the standard instructions.For each test probe they may have initiated a few attempts to retrieve.If these attempts resulted in failure,the attempts are aborted.This interpretation is related to the retrieval-effort hypothesis,as it suggests that in some situations additional retrieval attempts may be necessary in order to perform the task(Schacter et al.,1996a).However,this interpretation differs from the retrieval-effort hypothesis as it suggests that differences in memory performance need not produce differences in right prefrontal activation.Differences in activation may arise only to the extent that the retrieval context results in a bias to continue to engage in retrieval attempts.In this way,retrieval context plays an in?uential role by guiding participants towards a particular retrieval strategy.

Experiment2reconciles the con?icting results between

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory1999

studies supporting the attempt hypothesis and some of those supporting the success hypothesis(Tulving et al.,1994, 1996).However,the results from this experiment cannot directly account for demonstrations that retrieval success affects right prefrontal activation(Rugg et al.,1996).One possibility is that the results of Rugg et al.(1996)reveal yet another factor that determines the retrieval context: expectations that arise from participants’on-line monitoring of their retrieval performance.In the study of Rugg et al. (1996),new and high recognition conditions were used during entirely separate scanning epochs.It is possible that in the new epochs,participants noticed their low level of retrieval success during the run of20consecutive unstudied trials and shifted from a strategy consisting of retrieval search,or post-retrieval evaluation,to a more minimalist strategy based on familiarity.Such a strategy shift may be less likely,however, when new blocks regularly alternate with high blocks,as in the present study,or when new and old items are intermixed, as in the event-related fMRI study of Buckner et al.(1998a). From this perspective,although right prefrontal activation is not dependent on retrieval success,retrieval success may play a role in establishing the retrieval context in which participants attempt to retrieve.

The notion of context-dependent retrieval processes may also assist in integrating the current results with those of Schacter et al.(1996a).Although there are numerous methodological differences between the present study and that of Schacter et al.(1996a),perhaps the most signi?cant difference is the nature of the retrieval task(recognition or cued recall).In the context of cued recall,participants may have the expectation that they should be able to retrieve a previous experience when provided with the test probe,as the instructions inform them that each probe can be used to recall something from the past.Such expectations may encourage participants to persist with their retrieval attempts when faced with failure.In contrast,in recognition participants probably do not have the expectation that they should recognize every test probe.Thus,they may be more likely to abort retrieval attempts earlier in recognition than in cued recall.It may be that the pattern of right prefrontal activation across different levels of retrieval success partially depends upon the retrieval task.Tasks that encourage repeated retrieval attempts under conditions of poor performance may yield a different pattern of activation from tasks that allow for termination of such attempts after a few failures. Further evidence that retrieval attempt is context dependent comes from neuroimaging studies of veridical and illusory recognition(Schacter et al.,1996c;Johnson et al.,1997; Schacter et al.,1997).In those studies,participants made recognition decisions for studied words(veridical recognition) and for novel words that were conceptually related to the studied words(illusory recognition).The recognition test was either blocked by illusory and veridical conditions(Schacter et al.,1996c,1997)or had intermixed illusory and veridical trials(Johnson et al.,1997;Schacter et al.,1997). Behaviourally,participants appear to struggle more with illusory than with veridical recognition judgements within a blocked context(response latencies are longer during illusory recognition),but not within an intermixed context(Johnson et al.,1997).Schacter et al.(1997)suggest that participants ‘might engage in more careful scrutiny of speci?c attributes of the test item’in the illusory versus the veridical condition when in the blocked retrieval context but not when in the intermixed context.Consistent with the context-dependent retrieval-process hypothesis,there was a trend towards greater right prefrontal activation when comparing illusory with veridical recognition in the blocked context(Schacter et al., 1996c;see also Schacter et al.,1997),but not in the intermixed context(Johnson et al.,1997;Schacter et al., 1997).

Electrophysiological evidence

The present blocked-design fMRI experiments,together with the event-related fMRI study of Buckner et al.(1998a)and previous PET studies(Kapur et al.,1995;Nyberg et al., 1995),suggest that retrieval-associated right prefrontal activation does not depend on retrieval success.However,a number of investigations measuring event-related potentials (ERPs)have demonstrated differential activity at electrode sites overlying prefrontal cortex across conditions varying in retrieval success(for a review,see Allan et al.,1998).For example,a positive-going modulation situated over right frontal electrode sites was greater when recognition judgements were accompanied by a correct source judgement than when accompanied by an incorrect one(Wilding and Rugg,1996).Similarly,a positive-going modulation situated over bilateral frontal sites was greater when recognition was associated with conscious recollection(as indexed by subjective judgements)than when not associated with conscious recollection(Duzel et al.,1997).These results suggest that right prefrontal activation is greater under conditions where recognition is accompanied by memory for speci?c aspects of a previous event.It is dif?cult to reconcile these ERP results with fMRI and PET demonstrations that retrieval success is not necessary for,and does not directly modulate,right prefrontal activation.One possibility is that the neural source of the ERP effects is different from the right APC and right DLPC regions frequently visualized during fMRI and PET studies and is undetected by these methods.Alternatively,these ERP effects appear to be demonstrated under recognition conditions that require an additional judgement above and beyond recognition,such as judgements of source or conscious recollection.Differences across fMRI,PET and ERP studies may partially re?ect these differences in retrieval-task demands.Future studies that use either PET or fMRI in conjunction with ERP may serve to clarify the source of these inconsistencies.

When are right prefrontal cortices relevant to recognition performance?

Repeated demonstrations of prefrontal activation in PET and fMRI studies of recognition contrast with reports of modest

2000 A.D.Wagner et al.

or no de?cits in standard yes–no recognition tests following prefrontal lesion(Shimamura,1994;Wheeler et al.,1995). Such dissociations suggest that regions visualized during memory performance may be correlated with,but are not necessary for,the memory behaviour being measured (Blaxton et al.,1996).The present?nding that the magnitude of right prefrontal activation does not systematically vary with recognition performance is consistent with the possibility that these regions are not critical for recognition performance under standard testing conditions.This pattern can be contrasted with the greater medial temporal activation associated with greater retrieval success in recognition (Nyberg et al.,1996b;Rugg et al.,1997)and cued recall (Schacter et al.,1996a).This medial temporal activation possibly re?ects conscious recollection of the past that can support a recognition judgement.

Although prefrontal lesions typically result in minimal de?cits on standard recognition tasks,marked impairments can occur under select recognition conditions where accurate recognition performance requires extensive retrieval search or post-retrieval evaluation.For example,Schacter et al. (1996b)report a patient(B.G.)who demonstrates impaired recognition memory due to a right frontal lesion.B.G.’s recognition de?cits manifest as increased illusory recognition. Under conditions where foils are similar to targets, participants may need to initiate multiple retrieval searches or extensively evaluate the products of memory in order to recollect speci?c episodic information that would allow discrimination between foils and targets.Prefrontal cortices may be critical for recognition performance in such a condition.Along these same lines,studies of the effects of Parkinson’s disease on recognition performance revealed that although recognition is usually unaffected when performed shortly after study(Brown and Marsden,1990),recognition is impaired when performed after long delays(Stebbins et al., 1998).Under long retention intervals,participants may not be able to discriminate targets from foils based on differential familiarity.Rather,participants may need to recollect speci?c aspects of the study event.These requirements would place greater demands on the prefrontal regions thought to be impaired in Parkinson’s disease.

Conclusions

The present fMRI studies indicate that right APC and right DLPC regions mediate processes that are associated with attempting to recollect the past,and that the probability of engaging these processes varies across retrieval contexts. Multiple factors appear to affect the retrieval context, including test instructions,on-line monitoring of retrieval success and task designs.Thus,variable right prefrontal activation may be expected across studies.The present results complement neuropsychological demonstrations that prefrontal cortices are not necessary for standard recognition performance,as right prefrontal activation did not systematically vary with performance.However,these prefrontal regions may be critical for recognition performance under contexts where discrimination between novel and studied stimuli requires retrieval of speci?c aspects of the past,such as when foils are closely associated with studied items or when the study–test delay is lengthened. Acknowledgements

Supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIA AG12995and AG11121).We thank G.H.Bower,R. L.Buckner,L.Nyberg,R.A.Poldrack,M.D.Rugg,D.E. Rumelhart,D.L.Schacter,E.Tulving and https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,ersky for insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. References

Allan K,Wilding EL,Rugg MD.Electrophysiological evidence for dissociable processes contributing to recollection.[Review].Acta Psychol1998;98:231–52.

Awh E,Jonides J,Smith EE,Schumacher EH,Koeppe RA,Katz S.Dissociation of storage and rehearsal in verbal working memory: evidence from positron emission tomography.Psychol Sci1996;7: 25–31.

Blaxton TA,Zef?ro TA,Gabrieli JD,Bookheimer SY,Carrillo MC, Theodore WH,et al.Functional mapping of human learning:a positron emission tomography activation study of eyeblink conditioning.J Neurosci1996;16:4032–40.

Boynton GM,Engel SA,Glover GH,Heeger DJ.Linear systems analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging in human V1.J Neurosci1996;16:4207–21.

Brown RG,Marsden CD.Cognitive function in Parkinson’s disease: from description to theory.[Review].Trends Neurosci1990;13: 21–9.

Buckner RL.Beyond HERA:contributions of speci?c prefrontal brain areas to long-term memory retrieval.[Review].Psychonom Bull Rev1996;3:149–58.

Buckner RL,Petersen SE,Ojemann JG,Miezin FM,Squire LR, Raichle ME.Functional anatomical studies of explicit and implicit memory retrieval tasks.J Neurosci1995;15:12–29.

Buckner RL,Raichle ME,Miezin FM,Petersen SE.Functional anatomic studies of memory retrieval for auditory words and visual pictures.J Neurosci1996;16:6219–35.

Buckner RL,Koutstaal W,Schacter DL,Dale AM,Rotte M,Rosen BR.Functional-anatomic study of episodic retrieval:II.Selective averaging of event-related fMRI trials to test the retrieval success hypothesis.Neuroimage1998a;7:163–75.

Buckner RL,Koutstaal W,Schacter DL,Wagner AD,Rosen BR. Functional-anatomic study of episodic retrieval using fMRI:I. Retrieval effort versus retrieval success.Neuroimage1998b;7: 151–62.

Cohen NJ,Squire LR.Preserved learning and retention of pattern-analyzing skill in amnesia:dissociations of knowing how and knowing what.Science1980;210:207–10.

Prefrontal cortex and recognition memory2001

Craik FIM,Lockhart RS.Levels of processing:a framework for memory research.J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav1972;11:671–84.

Dale AM,Buckner RL.Selective averaging of rapidly presented individual trials using fMRI.Hum Brain Mapp1997;5:329–40.

Desmond JE,Sum JM,Wagner AD,Demb JB,Shear PK,Glover GH,et al.Functional MRI measurement of language lateralization in Wada-tested patients.Brain1995;118:1411–9.

Desmond JE,Gabrieli JDE,Sobel N,Rabin LA,Wagner AD,Seger CA,et al.An fMRI study of frontal cortex and cerebellum during semantic and working memory tasks[abstract].Soc Neurosci Abstr 1996;22:1111.

Duzel E,Yonelinas AP,Mangun GR,Heinze H-J,Tulving E.Event-related brain potential correlates of two states of conscious awareness in memory.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA1997;94:5973–8.

Fiez JA,Raichle ME,Miezin FM,Petersen SE,Tallal P,Katz WF. PET studies of auditory and phonological processing:effects of stimulus characteristics and task demands.J Cognit Neurosci1995; 7:357–75.

Fiez JA,Raife EA,Balota DA,Schwarz JP,Raichle ME,Petersen SE.A positron emission tomography study of the short-term maintenance of verbal information.J Neurosci1996;16:808–22. Friston KJ,Jezzard P,Turner R.Analysis of functional MRI time-series.Hum Brain Mapp1994;1:153–71.

Gabrieli JDE.Cognitive neuroscience of human memory.[Review]. Annu Rev Psychol1998;49:87–115.

Gabrieli JDE,Prabhakaran V,Rypma B,Wagner AD,Kang E, Desmond JE.Attention to thought:functional magnetic resonance imaging(fMRI)evidence[abstract].Abstr Psychonom Soc1997; 2:28.

Glover GH,Lai S.Self-navigated spiral fMRI:interleaved versus single-shot.Magn Reson Med.In press1998.

Glover GH,Lee AT.Motion artifacts in fMRI:comparison of2DFT with PR and spiral scan methods.Magn Reson Med1995;33: 624–35.

Graf P,Schacter DL.Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn1985;11:501–18.

Jacoby LL.A process dissociation framework:separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.J Mem Lang1991;30:513–41. Johnson MK,Nolde SF,Mather M,Kounios J,Schacter DL,Curran T.The similarity of brain activity associated with true and false recognition memory depends on test format.Psychol Sci1997;8: 250–7.

Kapur S,Craik FI,Jones C,Brown GM,Houle S,Tulving E. Functional role of the prefrontal cortex in retrieval of memories:a PET study.Neuroreport1995;6:1880–4.

Milner B,Corsi P,Leonard G.Frontal-lobe contribution to recency judgements.Neuropsychologia1991;29:601–18.

Noll DC,Cohen JD,Meyer CH,Schneider W.Spiral K-space MR imaging of cortical activation.J Magn Reson Imaging1995;5: 49–56.

Nyberg L,Tulving E,Habib R,Nilsson L-G,Kapur S,Houle S,et al.Functional brain maps of retrieval mode and recovery of episodic information[see comments].Neuroreport1995;7:249–https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,ment in:NeuroReport1995;7:9–10.

Nyberg L,Cabeza R,Tulving E.PET studies of encoding and retrieval:the HERA model.[Review].Psychonom Bull Rev1996a; 3:135–48.

Nyberg L,McIntosh AR,Houle S,Nilsson L-G,Tulving E. Activation of medial temporal structures during episodic memory retrieval[see comments].Nature1996b;380:715–https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,ment in: Nature1996;380:669–70.

Petrides M,Alivisatos B,Meyer E,Evans AC.Functional activation of the human frontal cortex during the performance of verbal working memory tasks.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA1993;90:878–82.

Picard N,Strick PL.Motor areas of the medial wall:a review of their location and functional activation.[Review].Cereb Cortex 1996;6:342–53.

Raaijmakers JGW,Shiffrin RM.Search of associative memory. Psychol Rev1981;88:93–134.

Raichle ME,Fiez JA,Videen TO,MacLeod AM,Pardo JV,Fox PT,et al.Practice-related changes in human brain functional anatomy during nonmotor learning.Cereb Cortex1994;4:8–26. Roediger HL3d.Implicit memory:retention without remembering. [Review].Am Psychol1990;45:1043–56.

Rugg MD,Fletcher PC,Frith CD,Frackowiak RS,Dolan RJ. Differential activation of the prefrontal cortex in successful and unsuccessful memory retrieval.Brain1996;119:2073–83.

Rugg MD,Fletcher PC,Frith CD,Frackowiak RS,Dolan RJ.Brain regions supporting intentional and incidental memory:a PET study. Neuroreport1997;8:1283–7.

Schacter DL,Alpert NM,Savage CR,Rauch SL,Albert MS. Conscious recollection and the human hippocampal formation: evidence from positron emission tomography.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA1996a;93:321–5.

Schacter DL,Curran T,Galluccio L,Milberg WP,Bates JF.False recognition and the right frontal lobe:a case study.Neuropsychologia 1996b;34:793–808.

Schacter DL,Reiman E,Curran T,Yun LS,Bandy D,McDermott KB,et al.Neuroanatomical correlates of veridical and illusory recognition memory:evidence from positron emission tomography [see comments].Neuron1996c;17:267–https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,ment in:Neuron 1996;17:191–4.

Schacter DL,Buckner RL,Koutstaal W,Dale AM,Rosen https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,te onset of anterior prefrontal activity during true and false recognition: an event-related fMRI study.Neuroimage1997;6:259–69. Shallice T.From neuropsychology to mental structure.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;1988.

Shimamura AP.Memory and frontal lobe function.In:Gazzaniga MS,editor.The cognitive neurosciences.Cambridge(MA):MIT Press;1994.p.803–13.

Squire LR.Memory and the hippocampus:a synthesis from?ndings with rats,monkeys,and humans[published erratum appears in Psychol Rev1992;99:582].[Review].Psychol Rev1992;99: 195–231.

2002 A.D.Wagner et al.

Squire LR,Ojemann JG,Miezin FM,Petersen SE,Videen TO, Raichle ME.Activation of the hippocampus in normal humans:a functional anatomical study of memory.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:1837–41.

Stebbins GT,Gabrieli JDE,Masciari F,Monti L,Goetz CG.Delayed recognition memory in Parkinson’s disease:a role for working memory?Neuropsychologica.In press,1998.

Talairach J,Tournoux P.Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain.Stuttgart:Thieme;1988.

Tulving E.Episodic and semantic memory.In:Tulving E,Donaldson W,https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,anization of memory.New York:Academic Press; 1972.p.381–403.

Tulving E.Elements of episodic memory.Oxford:Clarendon Press,1983.

Tulving E,Schacter DL.Priming and human memory systems. Science1990;247:301–6.

Tulving E,Kapur S,Markowitsch HJ,Craik FI,Habib R,Houle S. Neuroanatomical correlates of retrieval in episodic memory:auditory sentence recognition[see comments].Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994;91:2012–https://www.doczj.com/doc/974504094.html,ment in:Proc Natl Acad Sci USA1994; 91:1989–91.

Tulving E,Markowitsch HJ,Craik FI,Habib R,Houle S.Novelty and familiarity activations in PET studies of memory encoding and retrieval.Cereb Cortex1996;6:71–9.

Wagner AD,Buckner RL,Koutstaal WK,Schacter DL,Gabrieli JDE,Rosen BR.An fMRI study of within-and across-task item repetition during semantic classi?cation[abstract].Abstr Cognit Neurosci Soc1997a;4:68.

Wagner AD,Desmond JE,Demb JB,Glover GH,Gabrieli JDE. Semantic repetition priming for verbal and pictorial knowledge:a functional MRI study of left inferior prefrontal cortex.J Cognit Neurosci1997b;9:714–26.

Wagner AD,Gabrieli JD,Verfaellie M.Dissociations between familiarity processes in explicit recognition and implicit perceptual memory.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn1997c;23:305–23. Wagner AD,Poldrack RA,Desmond JE,Glover GH,Gabrieli JDE. An fMRI study of prefrontal activation during retrieval of verbal and non-verbal episodic memory[abstract].Soc Neurosci Abstr 1997d;23:492.

Wheeler MA,Stuss DT,Tulving E.Frontal lobe damage produces episodic memory impairment.J Int Neuropsychol Soc1995;1: 525–36.

Wheeler MA,Stuss DT,Tulving E.Toward a theory of episodic memory:the frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness.[Review]. Psychol Bull1997;121:331–54.

Wilding EL,Rugg MD.An event-related potential study of recognition memory with and without retrieval of source[published erratum appears in Brain1996;119:1416].Brain1996;119: 889–905.

Woods RP,Cherry SR,Mazziotta JC.Rapid automated algorithm for aligning and reslicing PET images.J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:620–33.

Received February10,1998.Revised April25,1998.

Accepted May21,1998

对照准则条例自我剖析材料

对照准则条例自我剖析材料 作为热点岗位的部门分管领导，对照《廉政准则》要求，在平时工作中，我能时刻提醒自己，踏实做好工作，不忘自己是一名党员和人民的公仆，主要注重以下几个方面： 一、不为名利，脚踏实地做好热点岗位的各项工作 作为一名基层的专业技术人员，我受到党和国家的多年培养，虽然现在分管全县的规划和大城区的基础设施建设工作，整天和开发商以及包区头打交道，我能以良好的状态、饱满的工作热情投身于火热的工作之中。以干好事业作为人生追求，放弃在国外的优厚生活;以为民多做实事为宗旨，不谋取个人任何利益;以“宁可天下人负我，我不负天下人”为座右铭，不怕得罪人。不畏谣言攻击，珍惜现有的岗位，不辜负组织上给我提供了这样好的工作平台，让我有了这么好的发挥自身才能的机会。 二、发挥优势，创造性地开展热点岗位的各项工作 我涉及的工作面广量大，任务繁重，县城总体规划正在重新修编，城市正处于日新月异的飞猛发展阶段，我有多年的工程设计和管理经验，在开发区也分管过征地拆迁等工作，有做好群众工作的基础，在过去的几年里，我分管的经济开发区的园区规划和城市建设工作也取得了很大的进步。目前，全县大城区建设框架已经拉开，沿海港口建设如火如荼，我每天的工作千头万绪，而下属专业人员配备严重不足，还要处理大量的群众建房拆房矛盾，我能做到学会弹钢琴，发挥自身专业优势，粗细结合，以解决棘手矛盾和难题为目标，以辛劳的工作来锻炼自己，以奋斗为乐，以吃苦为荣，创造性地开展大城区的规划和建设工作，不为名利问题而再去浪费自己有限的精力。 三、专心致志，一切围绕热点岗位的各项工作 我与别人打交道，相互间都能保持应有的距离，从不与自身工作相关的人员有经济往来，虚心与客商打交通，热情接待每个来访的群众，认真负责办好每件事，白天忙，就利用晚上干，基本没有假日，夜深人静时也常常思考工作，以合格党员标准对照要求自己，时刻警醒自己，鞭策自己，团结同志，专心工作。 四、廉洁自律，清清白白地做好热点岗位的各项工作 我为xx这块神奇土地上休养生息的万千民众而活，我的工作就是建设今天，构想明天，我每天都要和善良与罪恶打交道，接受良心和诱惑的煎熬。我每时每刻都在提醒自己，我要为已经出生和尚未出生的孩子们负责，我今天活着就是为了他们明天能有一个美好的家园，决不能为眼前而透支未来的和谐，也是为了自己在百年之后能有一片清宁的歇息之地。

部队条令条例对照检查怎么写

---------------------------------------------------------------范文最新推荐------------------------------------------------------ 部队条令条例对照检查怎么写 关于部队条令条例对照检查怎么写，其实小编也不知道。   可是根据大神指点，得知：先把你犯的错写出来，然后对照条令条例看违反了那几条，一条一条写出来之后就是对照检查，根据前面的错写保证之类的东西。最后可以这样写以上是本人的对照检查，如有不足之处请领导批评指正，就这样就可以了。   当然，据说也有些大牛对照条令条例一条条看过去，最后自承没有违反过任何一条的，也过关了。相当于思想汇报，自我检讨。   另：网上其他地方也没有范文（小编已帮你搜了一遍，所以安心自己写吧） 尊敬的党组织： 自连队开展作风纪律整顿以来，我采取多种形式组织连队积极开 1 / 21

展批评与自我批评，对连队现时存在的问题开展了自查和剖析，同时也对照五查五看对自身在思想观念、带兵理念、工作作风、执行落实、履职尽责、工作效能等方面存在的问题进行了认真查摆和剖析。通过学习上级党委文件及领导的讲话精神，检查出了自己的学习态度、工作方法、管理经验及日常管理工作的执行力度等方面存在的许多不足。作为一名连队的军事主官，在做好专项整改综合协调工作的同时，结合自己大半年的工作进行了认真的回头看，深入查摆自己在思想上、工作当中存在的问题，并制定相应的整改措施，为今后的发展奠定了基础，力求做到有则改之，无则加勉，现将个人自查情况向首长汇报如下： 一、存在不足 一、在学习上，学习不够深入，导致理想信念有所动摇。具体表现为对参与政治理论学习态度不如以前认真，对待重要政治活动不够细心，党员的先进性意识淡化，党员的荣誉感和自豪感丢失，服务意识、奉献精神都不如从前。与基层连队的管理要求有差距。作为部队的基层主官，缺乏较高的政策理论水平和较强的业务技能知识。我在学习方面主要存在以下几个方面的不足。一是对学习的必要性认识不足，认为身处基层，只要把连队安排的各项工作做好，把公差勤务任务完成，确保不出安全问题就够了，学不学一样能搞好工作; 二是把学习的位置摆的不当，没有挤出一定的时间加强学习，片面的只做具体事，搞自己分管的实际工作;抓训练，确保岗哨制度落实到位，现在认识到这样是远远不够的。三是学习方法欠佳，没有把理论知

《条例》落实自检自查情况报告

**********管理处 《条例》落实自检自查情况报告 市委组织部： 《中国共产党党组工作条例(试行)》下发以后，**********管理处党组根据《条例》和上级党委的整改要求，把学习党组《条例》当成一件政治任务来抓，努力加强和改善党的领导，提高党组织的凝聚力、战斗力。现将学习贯彻落实《条例》情况汇报如下： 一、发挥党组在本单位的领导核心作用。**********管理处党组2015年经市委组织部批准建立。建立党组以来，我们按照《条例》的要求，认真抓好党的建设，充分发挥党组的领导核心作用，认真履行政治领导责任，抓好“两学一做”学习教育，定期开展党日活动，通过这两个载体和平台，组织全体党员干部开展学习教育活动，坚定理想信念，提高思想觉悟，在政治上同党中央保持一致，确保党的路线方针政策和上级党委决策的贯彻落实。党组充分发挥了把方向、顾大局、保落实的重要作用。 二、严格履行全面从严治党主体责任。党组书记和党组成员努力加强思想政治建设，坚定理想信念，严守政治红线和政治规矩，严肃党内政治生活，按市委的规定召开民主生活

会。根据巡视组反馈意见和市委要求，7月2日党组召开了专题民主生活会，党组书记*****代表党组认真地进行了检查对照，查找了党组在履行党的政治路线，遵守党的政治规矩，政治纪律，反对“四风”，遵守中央《八项规定》等方面存在的问题。查找了根源，明确了整改目标，确定了整改责任人。班子成员分别开展了自我批评，班子成员之间还开展了互相批评，达到了团结—批评—团结的目的。在从严治党上，党组书记认真履行第一责任人的责任，加强对本单位党组建设的领导，落实党建工作责任制。党组成员带头遵守党员干部廉洁从政有关规定，并自觉接受党组织和党员干部的监督。党组书记与党组成员，党组成员与分管部门的科室责任人分别签订了廉政风险防控责任状，防微杜渐，警钟长鸣。 三、执行民主集中制，发挥班子整体功能。**********管理处尽管有11名在职党员干部，肩负着*****和******两项重大民生工程。为了搞好这两项工程建设，确保每一笔资金都得到合理利用，避免造成失误浪费，我们始终坚持项目法人制、合同制、招投标制、监理制，把民主集中制贯穿于工程始终。所有工程从可研、立项、规划、设计、实施、变更、招投标都召开党组会议、班子会议。重大决策充分协商，民主集中，个别酝酿，实行科学决策、民主决策、依法决策。不管日常工作还是工程建设，在决策上没有失误的情况。 四、加强党组自身建设，提高班子成员战斗力。******党

个人对照材料

个人对照材料Last revision on 21 December 2020

个人对照材料 以下是我的自我剖析： 一、存在的问题 1、业务学习方面 自学意识不够强，不但没系统的学习“三治三提”相关政策与理论，而且没有发扬“钉子”精神利用工作间隙促学习。不善于用“钻”劲和“挤”劲抓紧点滴时间用于学习其精髓。学习时间、学习内容和学习效果没有落实到位，在学习中强调客观多、主观少。有时只注重实用主义“急用先学”不注重统战知识的全面性与系统性学习。学习上存在自满情绪，不注重更新知识，遇到具体事情，往往是凭主观臆断和经验去分析情况、工作处理问题。 工作作风方面工作作风不够扎实，有时存在急于求成的情绪。对人对事要求过高。过于按照以往工作经验、强调工作日程表使同事一时难以接受。 工作思路不宽，尽管在工作上创新了一些思路但在实际执行中存在着相互协调、筹兼顾的工作做得不够好，工作中有时满足于得过且过的现象。日常工作中与时俱进，开拓创新的思想树立得不牢固。在具体的服务工作中思路不宽，在对工作和生活领域仍满足于现状。 2、纪律作风方面 有时对自己要求不严，将自己混同于群众，总认为自己没坏心眼致使说话有时随便，不太注意小节，工作行为上选择偏重实用的想法。 3、思想作风方面 有时精神不十分振作，烦躁心理时有发生。在迎接检查时，遇到任务重、出现问题及工作压力大的时候容易产生焦躁情绪。

对批评与自我批评开展得不好，对其他同事不愿意提出反对意见，对自己的缺点也没有主动请其他人正面点出，错误地认为批评别人是“挖坑害人”，批评自己是“挖坑堵路”。 二、存在问题的主要原因 以上问题的存在，虽然有一定的客观原因，但主要是主观原因造成的。问题出在表面上，根子生在思想上，从更深层次上分析起来，主要有以下几点： 1、没有真正理解全心全意为人民服务含义。故由于没有把握学习的应有目的，影响了理论学习水平的提高。 2、作为员工，全心全意为患者和临床科室服务的宗旨观念有所淡化。没有很好的加强世界观、人生观的进一步改造，有时产生松口气的念头，认为自己工作已经很努力了，致使对工作调研有时不够深入，满足于应付上面。 3、自我要求有所放松，忽视了自我约束、 自我监督、自我提高。在自身学习上就学习抓学习，而不去研究思考问题。特别是对后勤管 理知识方面，知识掌握太少。 4、工作中有依赖思想，满足于自身的知识和经验。 5、有时产生怕得罪人，不愿碰硬的想法。对一些不良现象和行为往往是睁一眼闭一眼，不能坚定立场，而且有时自认为自己在处里各方面表现还可以，因此一般就不去做批评和自我批评。 对于以上问题我将做到以下方面： 第一坚持不忘初心，牢记使命，始终对党绝对忠诚。对党忠诚，是党的事业顺利发展的坚强政治保证。要如实向组织反映和报告情况，重要决策、重大事项主动请示，个人、家庭重要事项如实报告。

党组工作条例自查报告

竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除党组工作条例自查报告 篇一：关于《条例》贯彻落实情况的自查报告 ******** 关于《条例》贯彻落实情况的自查报告 *****党支部成立于20XX年8月，现有中共党员22名，预备党员2名。公司党支部成立以来，在市直机关工委的正确指导下，以马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想、邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想为指导，认真学习党的十七大和十七届三中、四中、五中全会精神，深入贯彻落实科学发展观，认真贯彻党的路线方针政策，认真执行上级党组织的决定和各项工作部署，紧紧围绕市委、市政府的中心工作，以经济建设为中心，以改革创新精神加强党的思想建设、组织建设、作风建设、制度建设和反腐倡廉建设，提高党的建设科学化水平，发扬党内民主，加强党内监督，坚持党要管党、从严治党，充分发挥党的思想政治优势，组织优势和密切联系群众的优势，把服务中心、建设队伍贯穿始终，充分发挥基层党组织的凝聚力、创造力、战斗力，提高党员干部队伍的整

体素质，扎实工作，敬业奉献，全面推进公司各项工作目标任务的完成。 按照机关工委的要求，公司党支部结合工作实际，对照《中国共产党党和国家机关基层组织工作条例》的规定，重点抓住党建工作中存在的主要问题和矛盾，有侧重地开展自查，对需要重 点落实的工作逐一进行了认真的自查，做到了自查的有效性和针对性，对当前党建工作中存在的问题、矛盾，提出了具体的意见和建议。现将自查情况汇报如下。 一、《条例》的贯彻落实情况及主要经验做法 （一）公司党支部党组织的设置情况。按照《条例》的规定，公司党支部自成立之初就召开了全体党员大会，通过无记名投票表决，选举产生了党支部书记和其他委员，并上报了上级党组织批准。根据公司工作需要，本着精干、高效和有利于加强党的工作的原则，配备了专职党支部副书记，党支部的活动经费列入了公司行政经费预算，保障了党支部工作的正常运转。 （二）公司党员队伍建设情况。一是按照建设学习型党组织的要求，公司建立健全了让党员经常受教育、永葆先进性的长效机制，做到经常性教育和集中培训相结合。通过购买学习资料、订阅党报党刊等方式，保证党员每年参加教育培训的时间不少于24学时，公司班子成员不少于40学时。

对照《准则》《条例》规定和要求自我剖析

对照《准则》《条例》规定和要求自我剖析 对照《准则》《条例》规定和要求自我剖析篇一 作为热点岗位的部门分管领导,对照《廉政准则》要求,在平时工作中,我能时刻提醒自己,踏实做好工作,不忘自己是一名党员和人民的公仆,主要注重以下几个方面: 一、不为名利,脚踏实地做好热点岗位的各项工作 作为一名基层的专业技术人员,我受到党和国家的多年培养,虽然现在分管全县的规划和大城区的基础设施建设工作,整天和开发商以及包区头打交道,我能以良好的状态、饱满的工作热情投身于火热的工作之中。以干好事业作为人生追求,放弃在国外的优厚生活;以为民多做实事为宗旨,不谋取个人任何利益;以“宁可天下人负我,我不负天下人”为座右铭,不怕得罪人。不畏谣言攻击,珍惜现有的岗位,不辜负组织上给我提供了这样好的工作平台,让我有了这么好的发挥自身才能的机会。 二、发挥优势,创造性地开展热点岗位的各项工作 我涉及的工作面广量大,任务繁重,县城总体规划正在重新修编,城市正处于日新月异的飞猛发展阶段,我有多年的工程设计和管理经验,在开发区也分管过征地拆迁等工作,有做好群众工作的基础,在过去的几年里,我分管的经济开发区的园区规划和城市建设工作也取得了很大的进步。目前,全县大城区建设框架已经拉开,沿海港口建设如火如荼,我每天的工作千头万绪,而下属专业人员配备严重不足,还要处理大量的群众建房拆房矛盾,我能做到学会弹钢琴,发挥自身专业优势,粗细结合,以解决棘手矛盾和难题为目标,以辛劳的工作来锻炼自己,以奋斗为乐,以吃苦为荣,创造性地开展大城区的规划和建设工作,不为名利问题而再去浪费自己有限的精力。 三、专心致志,一切围绕热点岗位的各项工作 我与别人打交道,相互间都能保持应有的距离,从不与自身工作相关的人员有经济往来,虚心与客商打交通,热情接待每个来访的群众,认真负责办好每件事,白天忙,就利用晚上干,基本没有假日,夜深人静时也常常思考工作,以合格党员标准对照要求自己,时刻警醒自己,鞭策自己,团结同志,专心工作。 四、廉洁自律,清清白白地做好热点岗位的各项工作 我为xx这块神奇土地上休养生息的万千民众而活,我的工作就是建设今天,构想明天,我每天都要和善良与罪恶打交道,接受良心和诱惑的煎熬。我每时每刻都在提醒自己,我要为已经出生和尚未出生的孩子们负责,我今天活着就是为了他们明天能有一个美好的家园,决不能为眼前而透支未来的和谐,也是为了自己在百年之后能有一片清宁的歇息之地。 篇二 为全面贯彻落实《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》和《中国共产党纪律处分条例》,树立党员、干部党章党规党纪意识,确保《准则》和《条例》落到实处。 《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》和《中国共产党纪律处分条例》是对党员干部,特别是党员领导干部提出的行为规范。要加强教育,打牢构建体系的思想基础。通过对《准则》和《条例》深入学习教育,引导全体党员干部正确看待反腐败斗争的形势,查找其中薄弱环节,从思想上筑起拒腐防变的防线。同时,要强化示范教育和警示教育,通过从正反两方面的教育,使党员干部特别是党员领导干部认识到那些责任必须履行、那些红线不能触犯,促进廉洁自律良好风气的形成。 新修订的《准则》和《条例》深刻总结了党的十八大以来全面从严治党的丰富实践,坚持以党章为根本遵循,坚持问题导向,坚持纪严于法、纪在法前,汲取党的建设的历史经验,把从严治党实践成果转化为纪律和道德要求,实现了党内法规建设与时俱进。 通过学习《准则》和《条例》,我们更要加充分认识到廉洁和纪律的重要性,更加清晰认识到什么能做,什么不能做。我们作为一名党员,严谨是应具品质,在工作上始终把“严谨”二字悬于

《准则》和《条例》自查情况报告

《准则》和《条例》自查情况报告 为切实抓好《准则》和《条例》的学习贯彻，根据市纪委、市委组织部《关于认真做好学习贯彻《准则》和《条例》迎检工作的通知》(慈纪委〔20xx〕26号)精神，我校党支部召开党支部大会，组织全体党员干部认真学习，开展自查，现将自查情况报告如下： 一、关于《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》自查情况 党员干部廉洁自律是全面贯彻党的路线方针政策的重要保障，是新时期从严治党,不断加强党的执政能力建设和先进性建设的重要内容，是推进改革开放和社会主义现代化建设的基本要求，是正确行使权力,履行职责的重要基础。近年来，我校党员干部认真开展学习贯彻《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》的活动，主要抓了以下几方面工作： 一领导重视、精心部署和安排党风廉政建设 我校党支部把党风廉政建设工作列为全年党员干部教育工作的重点。一是认真落实党风廉政建设责任制。我校与党支部全体党员签订了《党风廉政建设责任书》，明确了各自的目标任务，成立了党支部书记为组长的党风廉政建设工作领导小组。二是加强领导班子成员间的沟通协调。在党风廉政建设中，坚持民主集中制，凡属重大事项，都经集体讨论决定，不搞一言堂。班子成员之间做到了相互通气，多理解，多支持，多配合，多尊重。全校形成了团结协作的和谐集体。

三是加强党风廉政建设工作措施的落实。制定了年度党员活动计划，进一步修正完善了党风廉政建设制度、党员组织生活制度等。 二牢记宗旨廉洁自律、认真落实各项规章制度 严格执行《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》，切实保证党风廉政建设与各项工作同步发展。一是抓好领导干部党风廉政建设情况定期登记和《崇寿镇相公殿小学关于学校领导干部廉洁自律规定》的学习。坚持定期对领导班子测评，对领导干部评议的制度，进一步规范领导干部的从政行为，单位没有发生以权谋私，或以工作职务之便谋取私利等违法乱纪现象。二是切实贯彻执行党风廉政建设责任制，管好自己，管好家属、子女。今年我校领导干部及其配偶、子女无违规经商办企业的情况、全体工作人员无参与赌博活动。三是积极推行阳光财务，实行财务公开、民主监督制度，成立了财务监督领导小组，加强民主管理。 近年来，我校党风廉政建设工作虽然收得了好的成效，但与上级的要求仍有一定的差距，特别是对新形势下廉政工作缺乏深入的研究，力度尚需加强。因此，要树立长期作战的思想，从自身抓起，防微杜渐，严格自律，维护党的形象，使我校党风廉政建设工作迈上一个新台阶。 二、学习中国共产党纪律处分条例自查报告 10月21日，中共中央印发了《中国共产党纪律处分条例》(以下简称《条例》)，这是党的十八大后全面落实从严治党的一大重要举措，是在十八届五中全会召开之前发出的党要管党的重要信号。

对照准则条例自查报告三篇

对照准则条例自查报告三篇 20xx年对照准则条例自查报告 为了进一步增强党员干部牢固树立“政治意识、大局意识、核心意识、看齐意识。”近期，县委党校采取集中授课、专题辅导、观看警示教育片和以案释法的形式组织全校教职工深入学习了《新形势下党内政治生活若干准则》和《中国共产党党内监督条例》，并于11月30日召开了全校党员干部“学习《准则》、《条例》，对照自查自纠”专题组织生活会，通过学习开展集中整治，校支部全体党员干部和全体教师参加会议。 会上，支部书记代国荣同志向与会同志通报了年终专题组织生活会的前期准备情况，并作自我检查和批评。校班子成员结合学习“《条例》、《准则》”、“两学一做”以及目前正在开展的精准扶贫工作进行了自我批评和对照检查，深刻反省了思想作风、学风、工作作风、领导作风等方面存在的问题，与会党员开诚布公地提出了意见。全体党员逐人发言，谈体会、谈认识、查找自身存在的问题与不足，提出自己的整改方向和努力目标，与会同志相互之间开展了严肃认真、开诚布公的批评与自我批评。 班子成员认真听取与会党员的对照检查和大家的批评发言后，进行了点评并各自谈了自己的看法，既肯定了成绩，重点分析了每个党员干部实际工作中的表现，又直接了当地指出了每个党员在思想作风和工作中的不足，提出了校支部进一步加强思想作风建设的要求。要把这次集中整治工作中自查出来的问题，通过建章立制，认认真真

地整改，做到在思想作风上有明显转变，工作效能上有明显提高，在管理服务上有明显改进。 会议最后开展了民主评议，全体与会同志认真填写了《长武县委党校支部党员评议表》 20xx年对照准则条例自查报告 党的十八届六中全会闭幕的第二天，武隆县委中心组就组织学习会议公报和《人民xx》社论。与此同时，县里迅速行动，当天就安排部署了全县学习全会精神的计划，及时安排县属机关、企事业单位和街镇、村(社区)的党员干部职工学习贯彻全会精神。 分4个专题学深学透 在县委中心组举行的专题学习会上，武隆县委书记何平要求大家认真学习，深刻领会全会精神实质，将《关于新形势下党内政治生活的若干准则》(简称《准则》)和《中国共产党党内监督条例》(简称《条例》)转化为自觉行动，将中央和市委的决策部署落到实处。 县委中心组将学习分为4个专题，一次选一个专题进行深入学习。与此同时，县委要求全县党员领导干部在学习过程中，自觉用《准则》对照自己的思想和行动，把坚定理想信念作为首要任务，重视过好严肃认真的组织生活，加强思想教育、认真开展批评和自我批评，坚持把纪律和规矩挺在前面，深入每一个具体环节，真正把《准则》具体落实到位。在贯彻落实《条例》方面，重在强化责任落实，真正把加强党内监督的责任扛在肩上、落到实处，真正敢抓敢管，真正知责、尽责、负责。

个人对照材料

个人对照材料

2、组织纪律、作风建设方面：经过党支部、部分党员群众的批评教育帮助，我深深地感觉到自己在思想作风、组织纪律方面一度放松了严格的要求，作风不够严谨，责任心不够强，有时参加党支部开展的活动不够积极主动，组织纪律观念出现滑坡，如有时借口工作繁忙，不能很好地完成支部交给教育活动工作任务指标。党的三大优良作风在我身上体现不够明显，有时听不进去不同的意见，批评与自我批评没能得到更好的落实，缺乏民主的作风，未能拿出百分之百的热情对待每一位同事。产生以上问题原因主要是组织纪律性有所淡化，没有能够更好地贯彻“八个坚持、八个反对”的严格要求。 3、工作能力、业务学习方面：在党支部和同志们的帮助下，我意识到自己距离党组织和群众的要求还有较大的差距，对待工作尚不够积极主动，只满足于完成领导交给的任务，在工作中遇到难题，不善于思考，动脑筋，想办法，常常消极等待领导的指示，说一步走一步。由于平时不够注重业务学习，工作能力提升不快，认为自己的现有业务知识可以适应目前的工作了，缺乏一种积极向上攀登的勇气，总是喜欢拿现在跟过去比，表现稍有好转，就会产生沾沾自喜、盲目乐观情绪，以致于工作中难以创新、难以有更大的进步。产生这些问题的原因主要是进取精神不强，满足于维持现状、缺乏刻苦钻研的精神，对新情况、新问题研究不够，使自己在某些方面的能力、水平不适应形势发展的要求，影响了工作的质量和效率。 三、今后努力方向： 随着先进性教育活动的不断深入，通过对照检查、分析评议，使我更加清醒地认识到自己存在的问题，也更加增强了我改正错误、提高自己思想政治素质的信心和决心。按照胡锦涛总书记提出的新时期保持共产党员先进性

个人对照材料

个人对照检查材料 （姓名） 在看到工作、学习成绩的同时，我严格按照党支部提出的“保持党员先进性八条标准”、镇党委保持先进性教育活动具体要求，特别是对照“三个代表”重要思想要求，对照优秀共产党员的先进事迹，对照“三个代表”重要思想和《党章》第三条规定的党员八项义务，对照胡锦涛总书记提出的新时期保持共产党员先进性的“六个坚持”的基本要求，对照同志们提出的意见和建议及自己的工作职责，进行了深刻地反思。深入查找问题、重点查找原因、关键查找主观的要求，从政治思想、理想信念、组织纪律、作风建设、工作能力、业务学习等方面认真查找存在的主要问题，分析产生问题的原因，主要表现在： 一、存在的问题和根原。 1、政治思想、理想信念方面：综合党支部、党员、群众各方面的意见，我认识到自己理想信念尚不够坚定，政治思想意识还不够强，对党的思想路线、方针政策的贯彻执行，缺乏应有的政治敏锐性和洞察力，缺乏一种时不我待的使命感和危机感；对邓小平理论和“三个代表”重要思想的学习还仅仅停留在字面上的理解，没有全面把握其思想的精髓，只是为了学习而学习，使学习变得形式化、教条化，在工作中，实践“三个代表”重要思想的自觉性不够强；对事物的认识往往停留在表面现象，对事物的理解还不够深刻、不够全面，缺乏入理的分析。存在上述问题的原因主要是我本人对理论学习的重要性认识不足，平时比较强调客观原因或忙于工作事务，从而放松了理论学习和世界观的改造，宗旨观念淡薄，群众观念不强。

2、组织纪律、作风建设方面：经过党支部、部分党员群众的批评教育帮助，我深深地感觉到自己在思想作风、组织纪律方面一度放松了严格的要求，作风不够严谨，责任心不够强，有时参加党支部开展的活动不够积极主动，组织纪律观念出现滑坡，如有时借口工作繁忙，不能很好地完成支部交给教育活动工作任务指标。党的三大优良作风在我身上体现不够明显，有时听不进去不同的意见，批评与自我批评没能得到更好的落实，缺乏民主的作风，未能拿出百分之百的热情对待每一位同事。产生以上问题原因主要是组织纪律性有所淡化，没有能够更好地贯彻“八个坚持、八个反对”的严格要求。 3、工作能力、业务学习方面：在党支部和同志们的帮助下，我意识到自己距离党组织和群众的要求还有较大的差距，对待工作尚不够积极主动，只满足于完成领导交给的任务，在工作中遇到难题，不善于思考，动脑筋，想办法，常常消极等待领导的指示，说一步走一步。由于平时不够注重业务学习，工作能力提升不快，认为自己的现有业务知识可以适应目前的工作了，缺乏一种积极向上攀登的勇气，总是喜欢拿现在跟过去比，表现稍有好转，就会产生沾沾自喜、盲目乐观情绪，以致于工作中难以创新、难以有更大的进步。产生这些问题的原因主要是进取精神不强，满足于维持现状、缺乏刻苦钻研的精神，对新情况、新问题研究不够，使自己在某些方面的能力、水平不适应形势发展的要求，影响了工作的质量和效率。 三、今后努力方向： 随着先进性教育活动的不断深入，通过对照检查、分析评议，使我更加清醒地认识到自己存在的问题，也更加增强了我改正错误、提高自己思想政治素质的信心和决心。按照胡锦涛总书记提出的新时期保持共产党员先进性的“六个坚持”的基本要求和党支部制定的《保持共产党员先进性教育八条标准》，

《条例》对照检查材料

《条例》对照检查材料 一是讲党性、重品行，作表率 第一，讲党性是领导干部的立身之本。对党员领导干部来说，加强党性修养，要始终做到;一是坚定共产主义理想和中国特色社会主义信念。二是坚定政治立场，始终自觉同党中央在思想上、政治上、行动上保持高度一致。三是坚定全心全意为人民服务的宗旨意识，把为人民谋利益作为最根本的目的。四是坚持群众路线，相信群众、依靠群众，始终保持同群众的血肉联系。五是坚持组织原则，正确处理个人与组织、民主与集中、集体领导与个人分工负责的关系，防止个人专断和各自为政，反对有令不行、有禁不止，不断提高领导决策水平，维护班子的团结统一。 第二，重品行是领导干部的做人之道。重品行，首先就是要老实做人、做老实人。具体要做到以下几个方面： 一要淡泊明志。应多工作少埋怨，多奉献少攀比，特别是遇到利益调整、职务升迁等关键时刻，每个领导干部都要平衡好自己的心理：在作出贡献时，要克服自满心理;走上重要岗位时,要克服骄傲心理;生活消费时，要克服虚荣心理;面对灯红酒绿时，要克服行乐心理;面临退休时，要克服补偿心理。始终保持一颗平常心，一颗健康心，一颗公仆心。 二要律己醒脑。领导干部要保持清醒头脑，算好人生“六笔账”，就是要算好“政治账”、算好“经济账”、算好“名誉账”、算好“家庭账”、算好“亲情账”、算好“自由账”。要以人为本，不要以人民币为本。要防止滥用权力。要树立正确的利益观。坚持人民利益、国家利益高于一切。

三要生活严谨。要过好社交关。要近君子、远小人，多跟人民群众交朋友，多跟正直的人交朋友，决不能交那种趋炎附势、投机钻营的朋友，决不能交那种打着自己旗号、谋取私利的朋友，决不能交那种品行低劣、搞歪门邪道的朋友;一定要自觉执行好中央关于领导干部管好配偶、子女的各项规定。要过好生活作风关。要牢记身份，注重形象，躬身做官，挺腰做人，俯首干事，努力做一个高尚的人，一个纯粹的人，一个有道德的人，一个脱离了低级趣味的人，一个有益于人民的人。 第三，作表率是领导干部的执政之要。要严格要求自己，要求别人遵守的自己先遵守，要求别人做到的自己先做到，要求别人提倡的自己先提倡，要求别人不干的自己先不干，时时处处以身作则，率先垂范，在以下几个方面作好表率。 一要作学以致用的表率。各级领导干部要树立强烈的学习意识，把学习当成一种政治责任、一种精神境界、一种终身追求、一种成长途径。要深入学习贯彻科学发展观，做到真学、真懂、真信、真用，使认认真真学习成为不断增强政治上坚定、理论上清醒的过程;要全面学习做好本职工作必需的知识，要把研究和解决重大现实问题作为学习的根本出发点，使认认真真学习成为理论联系实际，学以致用，不断提高工作原则性、系统性、预见性和创造性的过程。 二要作解放思想的表率。作解放思想、实事求是、与时俱进的表率。要在深化对世情、国情、县情、党情的科学认识中解放思想，在认清目标、明确任务中解放思想，在对比先进、查找差距中解放思想，在解放思想中真抓实干，在转变观念中破解难题，在更新思路中转变发展方式，真正把解放思想体现在具体工作中，落实到解决问题上来。要把思想认识从那些不合时宜的观念、做法和体制的束缚中解放出来，推动党员干部在思想观念上实现新解放，在各项工作上实现新突破，为推动我县经济社会跨越发展奠定坚实的思想基础。

个人对照材料

个人对照检查材料 （2014年8月第1稿） 根据党的群众路线教育实践活动相关要求，本人认真对照有关规定逐条进行自查自纠，系统的梳理了自身在“四风”方面存在的问题，对照检查情况如下： 一、遵守中央八项规定、省委省政府二十条规定和市委三十八条规定 （一）、遵守党的政治纪律情况 本人严格遵守党的纪律，坚持党的基本理论和基本路线不动摇。在政治原则、政治立场、政治观点和路线、方针、政策上同党中央保持高度一致，坚持学习马列主义等先进思想，始终做中国特色社会主义事业的衷心拥护者。 存在的差距与不足：一是感觉自己在党的大政方针的学习上还存在着不够深入，不够及时的现象，在党的大政方针的学习上还应与时俱进；二是需进一步深入细致在理论联系实际上还不能够得心应手，对上级部门安排的工作抓的不牢，盯的不死，对个别不正之风，不当言论、有时怕面子上不好看，不能当场指出来，助长了不正之风。 （二）贯彻中央八项规定、省委省政府二十条规定和市委三十八条规定的情况 以中央的“八项规定”、“省委省政府二十条规定”及“市委三十八条”为出发点和落脚点，坚持从严要求、务求实效的原则，不断改进自身工作作风。改进调查研究的方式方法，多

到基层深入了解真实情况，总结经验、研究问题、解决困难。 存在的差距和不足：一是在工作中没有尽量克服形式主义，脚踏实地地工作，能够把功夫下到察实情、出实招、办实事、求实效上；二是没有主动团结同志，融在一起；三是保持艰苦奋斗不力，没以饱满的精神投入到工作中去。 针对以上存在问题，我将逐一进行整改，遵守作风建设的各项规定。作为党员领导干部，我郑重的承诺，不出入私人会所、不接受和持有私人会所会员卡。 (三)个人需要明示的事项： 1、“三公经费”开支情况:本人在“三公”开支上严格执行并遵守上级的各项规定和标准控制。无利用公款的人情消费，职务消费都以节俭为主。 2、在公务用车情况：本人没有专用车，办公事也只能用自己的摩托车，所以不存在公车私用。 3、在办公用房情况：本人无固定的办公地点，所以无办公用房。 4、在个人住房情况：本人的房子是2012年海南省林区林场棚户区改造分配的98平米的住房,位于岛西林场职工生活区内。 5、家属子女从业情況： 6、“为官不为”的情况：不存在吃请，不存在收礼，不存在不干事、不担责等消极心态和行为。 二、个人“四风”方面存在的突出问题 （一）形式主义方面存在的突出问题：

对照《准则》和《条例》自查自纠报告

对照《准则》和《条例》自查自纠报告作风建设永远在路上，新《条例》和《准则》的颁布，为我党的作风建设提供有力武器和制胜法宝，实现了党内法规建设与时俱进。欢迎阅读本文，更多优质内容，欢迎关注pincai网。 对照《准则》和《条例》自查自纠报告近日，中共中央印发了《中国共产党廉洁自律准则》(以下简称《准则》)和《中国共产党纪律处分条例》(以下简称《条例》)，并发出通知，要求各地区各部门认真遵照执行。根据《中共xx市委办公室关于认真学习贯彻〈中国共产党廉洁自律准则〉和〈中国共产党纪律处分条例〉的通知》(xx党办发〔2015〕xx号)文件精神，我校党支部高度重视，精心组织，扎实推进，广泛学习，现将有关学习自查情况汇报如下：高度重视，精心组织 新修订的《准则》和《条例》是加强党的建设的一项重要举措，是加强党内监督的重要安排，对于全面从严治党，深入推进党风廉政建设和反腐败斗争具有十分重要的意义。学校党支部高度重视，把专题学习作为当前加强全体党员干部教育、提高廉洁自律水平的一项重要工作纳入重要议事日程，支部书记负总责亲自抓，确保学习贯彻落到实处。 二、扎实推进，广泛学习 接到通知后，学校党支部组织全体党员(学校现有党员5

人，因1人请产假通知其自学外，其余4人参加)于12月21日在学校会议室进行集中学习，认真学习贯彻了《准则》和《条例》原文，深刻认识领会两个新规定出台的背景和重要意义，仔细对照条文，写体会打算，作表态承诺，务求学深学透。 三、认真学习，深入自查 (一)、《准则》开宗明义，高屋建瓴，言简意赅重申了共产党员的理想信念宗旨，从普通党员和党员领导干部分别做出明确要求，普通党员主要处理好公私、廉腐、俭奢和苦乐四大关系。党员领导干部主要做好从政、用权、修身和齐家的学问，突出了习总书记提出的家风要求。作为一名共产党员，务求自己做到自省、自警、自励，做到淡泊明志，宁静致远，不让拜金主义、享乐主义和极端个人主义占据自己的思想，不让现实之中的歪风邪气侵蚀自己的灵魂。工作之余不参加赌博打牌、不参加大吃大喝，严格按照单位的规章制度办事。在报告个人事项方面。一直按照规定如实报告个人有关事项，配偶子女无移居国外现象。 (二)、《条例》紧紧围绕当前党内出现的诸多新情况新问题新挑战，针砭时弊，对症下药，全面系统具体回答了一名中共党员“哪些千万不能做”和“做了要承担什么样的后果”的问题。《条例》突出了纪严于法的特点，删去了与国家法律法规重复的规定，并对普通党员和党员领导干部一

个人对照检查材料

个人对照检查材料 一、在理想信念方面 1.对党的思想路线、方针政策的贯彻和执行，缺乏应有的政治敏锐性和洞察力，不具有一种时不我待的使命感和危机感。 2.不善于运用马列主义、毛泽东思想和邓小平理论来武装自己的头脑，没有培养自己从政治的角度来观察、分析问题，认识事物只停留在表面，未看本质，对事物的理解不深刻、不全面。 3.对政治学习“走过场”，停于形式，敷衍了事,平时虽经常学习马列主义、毛泽东思想及邓小平理论，但思想上未引起高度的重视，学习目的不够明确，学习时缺乏思考，只从字面上理解毛泽东思想，没有意识其思想的精髓，更没有掌握邓小平同志强有力的理论武器，使自己对理论知识的理解与实际脱钩，没有发挥理论的指导作用，只是为了学习而学习，使学习变得形式化、教条化。 二、在党的政治纪律方面 1.遇事不敢坚持原则。对于学校的各项规章制度没有全面身体力行，有活动时怕这怕那，工作怕苦怕累，图轻闲，这些归根到底是个人主义在作怪。由于世界观改造的忽视和放松，党性锻炼和修养的忽视和放松，导致是个人与集体，个人与他们的关系错位，非界限模糊与颠倒。 2.宗旨观念不牢。关心同学，帮助同学解决困难的意识不强，帮助同学解决问题的情况少，有时态度生硬，应付。与其他党员联系少、配合少，只顾抓好自己的学习，常常独来独往，不擅于主动帮助同学共同进步，只埋头学好自己的专业知识，关注个人发展。 3.对同学中不良现象视为不见，“老好人”现象严重思想作风软弱，自身思想作风建设缺乏力度和紧迫感。对于有违反纪律的现象不去制止，明则保身，不愿得罪人也不愿管。“老好人”现象严重。怕得罪人,怕损害同学间的关系的错误观念仍在作祟，认为“事不关己，高高挂起”，凡是和自己没有利害冲突的事情还是少管为妙。这是“个人利益”在作怪，说明我们党员忽视了自身思想建设和作风建设，在世界观、人生观和价值观的改造上缺乏力度。 三、在学习风气方面 1.对待学习不够主动、积极，只满足于完成导师交给的任务，在学习中遇到难题，不善于思考，动脑筋，常常等待导师或上级的的指示，说一步走一步。 2.对专业知识的掌握不够重视，缺乏一种认真精神，认为自己已有的一些专业知识可以适应目前的学习研究了，在工作中遇到繁琐、复杂的事情，会抱有可拖就拖的心态，今天不行，就等明天再说，对问题采取逃避的方法，认为“船到桥头自然直”，不是自己力求寻找对策，而是等待办法自己出现，虽然感到有潜在的压力和紧迫感，但缺乏自信心，缺乏向上攀登的勇气和刻苦钻研、锲而不舍、持之以恒的学习精神和态度。没有深刻意识到专业水平的高低对工作效率和质量起决定性作用。 3.自己没有一整套学习专业知识的计划，所以在学习中比较盲目。还有一方面，缺乏创新精神。对已经成为一种传统的学习模式很依顺，不太动脑筋去创新