Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
An influential hypothesis from the last decade proposed that regions within the right inferior frontal cortex of the human brain were dedicated to supporting response inhibition. There is growing evidence, however, to support an alternative model, which proposes that neural areas associated with specific inhibitory control tasks co-exist as common network mechanisms, supporting diverse cognitive processes. This meta-analysis of 225 studies comprising 323 experiments examined the common and distinct neural correlates of cognitive processes for response inhibition, namely interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation. Activation coordinates for each subcategory were extracted using multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA). The extracted activity patterns were then mapped onto the brain functional network atlas to derive the common (i.e., process-general) and distinct (i.e., domain-oriented) neural network correlates of these processes. Independent of the task types, activation of the right hemispheric regions (inferior frontal gyrus, insula, median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri) and superior parietal gyrus was common across the cognitive processes studied. Mapping the activation patterns to a brain functional network atlas revealed that the fronto-parietal and ventral attention networks were the core neural systems that were commonly engaged in different processes of response inhibition. Subtraction analyses elucidated the distinct neural substrates of interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation, revealing stronger activation in the ventral attention network for interference resolution than action inhibition. On the other hand, action withholding/cancellation primarily engaged the fronto-striatal circuit. Overall, our results suggest that response inhibition is a multidimensional cognitive process involving multiple neural regions and networks for coordinating optimal performance. This finding has significant implications for the understanding and assessment of response inhibition.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis of 225 fMRI studies (323 experiments) finds that response inhibition commonly engages right inferior frontal gyrus/insula, median cingulate/paracingulate gyri, and superior parietal gyrus, with fronto-parietal and ventral attention networks as core systems. Interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation share these networks but show distinct recruitment patterns, including stronger ventral attention network engagement for interference resolution and fronto-striatal involvement for action withholding/cancellation.
Key findings
- Across all 225 studies/323 experiments/3453 foci, significant right-hemisphere clusters included frontal cortex, angular gyrus, and supplementary motor area; activated areas were primarily distributed in the fronto-parietal network (36%), ventral attention network (27%), dorsal attention network (18%), and default mode network (13%).
- Common across the three subcategories were the right inferior frontal gyrus extending to insula, right median cingulate and paracingulate gyri, and right superior parietal gyrus; the common network distribution was ventral attention network (61%), fronto-parietal network (26%), default mode network (8%), and dorsal attention network (4%).
- Subcategory network distributions were: interference resolution — ventral attention network (45%), dorsal attention network (27%), fronto-parietal network (20%); action withholding — fronto-parietal network (39%), ventral attention network (28%), default mode network (15%), dorsal attention network (14%); action cancellation — ventral attention network (38%), fronto-parietal network (35%), default mode network (16%), dorsal attention network (8%).
- Subtraction/chi-square analyses showed interference resolution vs. action withholding differed significantly (χ² = 19.93, df = 6, p = 0.003) and interference resolution vs. action cancellation differed significantly (χ² = 22.37, df = 6, p = 0.001); interference resolution showed stronger ventral attention network activation than action inhibition, while action withholding/cancellation primarily engaged the fronto-striatal circuit.
Methods
- Literature search used PubMed, Web of Science, and BrainMap; 4092 reports were screened and 225 full articles were included. Experiments were categorized as interference resolution (50 articles, 68 experiments, 817 foci), action withholding (117 articles, 147 contrasts, 1932 foci), and action cancellation (73 articles, 108 experiments, 1523 foci).
- Activation coordinates were analyzed with multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) using a 5-mm spherical kernel, sample-size-weighted density maps, and Monte Carlo family-wise error correction (p < 0.05, FWE corrected across the entire brain); non-MNI coordinates were transformed using the Lancaster transformation.
- Significant voxels were overlaid onto seven functional networks (fronto-parietal, dorsal attention, ventral attention, somatomotor, visual, affective, default mode); chi-square tests and subtraction analyses compared subcategories, with validation via leave-one-out cross-validation and random selection of 68 contrasts.
Limitations
- The paper states that synthesizing different interference-resolution tasks (Stroop, Simon, Flanker, etc.) increases heterogeneity of paradigms and designs, although leave-one-out cross-validation showed highly replicable network distribution profiles; future meta-analyses with common stimulus–response incompatibility tasks are needed.
- The paper states that simple and complex Go/NoGo tasks may not be perfectly matched across included studies; the text reports high vs. low NoGo frequency comparisons as not significantly different, but the validation table shows the high-frequency NoGo-only contrast differed significantly (χ² = 43.52, df = 6, p < 0.01).
- The paper states that stop signal tasks may draw more on proactive than reactive control; a supplementary chi-square test found no significant difference between all contrasts and Stop–Go-only contrasts, but heterogeneity of action cancellation tasks remains a concern. Evident from the text: coordinate-based MKDA synthesizes published peak coordinates, so it cannot test individual-level or causal network dynamics.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 77 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Cluster activations in the frontal cortex included the insula, inferior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, and superior frontal gyrus.
“More precisely, cluster activations in the frontal cortex included the insula, inferior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, and superior frontal gyrus.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The all-inclusive analysis of the 225 studies showed significant activations of three large clusters in the right hemisphere: the frontal cortex, the angular gyrus, and the supplementary motor area.
“The all-inclusive analysis of the 225 studies showed significant activations of three large clusters in the right hemisphere: the frontal cortex, the angular gyrus, and the supplementary motor area (Fig. 3a and Table S3 in Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Several areas in the left hemisphere, including the insula, putamen, and middle frontal gyrus, were consistently activated across all response inhibition tasks.
“In addition, several areas in the left hemisphere, including the insula, putamen, and middle frontal gyrus were consistently activated across all response inhibition tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Interference resolution activated the left supplementary motor area.
“The regions activated by interference resolution were located in a subset of the previously mentioned clusters (Fig. 3b), including the left supplementary motor area, the left inferior parietal lobule, the left precentral gyrus, the right insula, the right middle frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Activation of the supplementary motor area extended to the middle frontal gyrus.
“Furthermore, activation of the angular gyrus cluster extended to the superior temporal gyrus, while activation of the supplementary motor area extended to the middle frontal gyrus.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
Activation of the angular gyrus cluster extended to the superior temporal gyrus.
“Furthermore, activation of the angular gyrus cluster extended to the superior temporal gyrus, while activation of the supplementary motor area extended to the middle frontal gyrus.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The activated areas were primarily distributed in the fronto-parietal network (36%), ventral attention network (27%), dorsal attention network (18%), and default mode network (13%).
“By overlapping these clusters with the seven functional networks, we discovered that the activated areas were primarily distributed in the fronto-parietal network (36%), ventral attention network (27%), dorsal attention network (18%), and default mode network (13%) (Table S9 in Supplementary Materials) (Fig. 4a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
These activations extended to the subcortical regions (the thalamus and pallidum).
“These activations extended to the subcortical regions (the thalamus and pallidum).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Relative to action cancellation, action withholding primarily recruited the fronto-parietal network.
“Furthermore, relative to action cancellation, action withholding primarily recruited the fronto-parietal network.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Independent of task type, the right inferior frontal gyrus extending to the insula, right median cingulate and paracingulate gyri, and right superior parietal gyrus were activated across all paradigm classes.
“Independent of the task type, brain areas including the right inferior frontal gyrus extending to the insula, the right median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri, and the right superior parietal gyrus were activated across all paradigm classes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Distinct neural correlates and networks were indicated for each of the three subcategories of response inhibition: interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation.
“Our findings show that distinct neural correlates and hence networks were indicated for each of the three subcategories of processes: inference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding activated the right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, extending to the insula and middle frontal gyrus.
“There were activations in the (1) right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, which extended to the insula and middle frontal gyrus; (2) right angular gyrus, which extended to the middle temporal gyrus and supramarginal gyrus; (3) right supplementary motor area, which extended to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri; (4) left insula, which extended to the putamen; and (5) right p”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding engaged the fronto-parietal network, including the right middle frontal gyrus, bilateral insula, right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, and subcortical areas such as the left putamen and right pallidum.
“On the other hand, action withholding engaged the fronto-parietal network, including regions of the right middle frontal gyrus, bilateral insula, the right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, and subcortical areas such as the left putamen and right pallidum (Table 4; Fig. 6c, d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Interference resolution activated bilateral inferior frontal gyri.
“The regions activated by interference resolution were located in a subset of the previously mentioned clusters (Fig. 3b), including the left supplementary motor area, the left inferior parietal lobule, the left precentral gyrus, the right insula, the right middle frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For the contrast condition of the stop signal tasks, there were no significant differences in the distribution of neural networks including all studies and Stop versus Go contrasts.
“With regard to the contrast condition of the stop signal tasks, we found no significant differences in the distribution of neural networks, including all studies and Stop versus Go contrasts (Table 4 and Table S8 in Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding activated the right pallidum.
“There were activations in the (1) right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, which extended to the insula and middle frontal gyrus; (2) right angular gyrus, which extended to the middle temporal gyrus and supramarginal gyrus; (3) right supplementary motor area, which extended to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri; (4) left insula, which extended to the putamen; and (5) right p”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Subtraction analyses revealed stronger activation in the ventral attention network for interference resolution than action inhibition.
“Subtraction analyses elucidated the distinct neural substrates of interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation, revealing stronger activation in the ventral attention network for interference resolution than action inhibition.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“Subtraction analyses elucidated the distinct neural substrates of interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation, and revealed stronger activation in the ventral attention network for interference resolution than action inhibition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
- Findingown data
Independent of task types, activation of right hemispheric regions (inferior frontal gyrus, insula, median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri) and superior parietal gyrus was common across the cognitive processes studied.
“Independent of the task types, activation of the right hemispheric regions (inferior frontal gyrus, insula, median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri) and superior parietal gyrus was common across the cognitive processes studied.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Mapping the activated patterns onto the functional network atlas showed that the fronto-parietal network and the ventral attention network were the core neural systems engaged during response inhibition.
“By mapping the activated patterns onto the functional network atlas (Yeo et al. 2011; Choi et al. 2012), we found that the fronto-parietal network and the ventral attention network were the core neural systems engaged during response inhibition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Findingown data
The evaluation of the number of experiments when contrasting the three subcategories indicated no significant differences among the real contrasts and the randomly selected 68 contrasts for action withholding and action cancellation.
“The evaluation of the number of experiments when contrasting the three subcategories indicated no significant differences among the real contrasts and the randomly selected 68 contrasts for action withholding and action cancellation (Table 4).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The common activated areas across the three subcategories were mostly distributed in the ventral attention network (61%), fronto-parietal network (26%), default mode network (8%), and dorsal attention network (4%).
“The network analysis showed that the common activated areas were mostly distributed in the ventral attention network (61%), fronto-parietal network (26%), default mode network (8%), and dorsal attention network (4%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When examining the NoGo vs. Go contrast in relation to action withholding, activation of the correlates of the ventral attention network and the fronto-parietal network was observed.
“When examining the NoGo vs. Go contrast in relation to action withholding, activation of the correlates of the ventral attention network and the fronto-parietal network was observed (detailed brain areas are listed in Table S7 in Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Leave-one-out cross-validation excluding each paradigm showed that the neural networks of interference resolution were primarily distributed in the ventral attention network and the dorsal attention network regardless of which paradigm was excluded.
“Using the leave-one-out cross-validation procedure, we tested the effects of excluding paradigms on interference resolution and found that the neural networks of interference resolution were primarily distributed in the ventral attention network and the dorsal attention network regardless of which paradigm was excluded (Table 5: Table S9 and Fig. S1 in Supplementary).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Interference resolution activated the left inferior parietal lobule.
“The regions activated by interference resolution were located in a subset of the previously mentioned clusters (Fig. 3b), including the left supplementary motor area, the left inferior parietal lobule, the left precentral gyrus, the right insula, the right middle frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The network distributions of interference resolution and action withholding were significantly different (χ2 = 19.93, df = 6, p = 0.003).
“Chi-square analyses revealed that the network distributions of interference resolution versus action withholding/action cancellation were significantly different (interference resolution vs. action withholding, χ 2 = 19.93, df = 6, p = 0.003; interference resolution vs. action cancellation, χ 2 = 22.37, df = 6, p = 0.001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
During action withholding, significant activation (p < 0.05, FWE corrected across the entire brain) was observed in a set of regions including the right inferior frontal gyrus (triangular and opercular parts), right insula, right middle frontal gyrus, right precentral gyrus, right angular gyrus, right middle and superior temporal gyri, right supramarginal gyrus, right supplementary motor area, and
“Brain areas significantly activated during action withholding (p < 0.05, FWE corrected across the entire brain)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Overlapping the MKDA maps of the three subcategories of response inhibition revealed common activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus extending to the insula, right median cingulate and paracingulate gyri, and right superior parietal gyrus.
“The common regions included the right inferior frontal gyrus, which extended to the insula, right median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri, and the right superior parietal gyrus (Fig. 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Relative to action withholding, action cancellation activated both the ventral attention and fronto-parietal networks.
“On the other hand, relative to action withholding, action cancellation activated both the ventral attention and fronto-parietal networks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Interference resolution activated the left precentral gyrus.
“The regions activated by interference resolution were located in a subset of the previously mentioned clusters (Fig. 3b), including the left supplementary motor area, the left inferior parietal lobule, the left precentral gyrus, the right insula, the right middle frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding activated the right supplementary motor area, extending to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri.
“There were activations in the (1) right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, which extended to the insula and middle frontal gyrus; (2) right angular gyrus, which extended to the middle temporal gyrus and supramarginal gyrus; (3) right supplementary motor area, which extended to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri; (4) left insula, which extended to the putamen; and (5) right p”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action cancellation compared with action withholding revealed significant activation in the ventral attention and fronto-parietal networks, with primary correlates in the right inferior frontal gyrus, right supplementary motor area, and right superior parietal gyrus.
“Action cancellation compared with action withholding revealed a significant activation in the ventral attention and fronto-parietal networks, in which the primary correlates were the right inferior frontal gyrus, the right supplementary motor area, and the right superior parietal gyrus (Fig. 6f).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Bilateral insula and the right caudate showed greater activation during action withholding than action cancellation.
“Brain areas in bilateral insula and the right caudate showed greater activation during action withholding than action cancellation (Fig. 6e).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Overlapping the neural activity pattern of each category of response inhibition tasks revealed three main clusters of activation: right IFG extending to insula, right median cingulate and paracingulate gyri, and right superior parietal gyrus.
“By overlapping the neural activity pattern of each category of response inhibition tasks, three main clusters of activation were observed at the (1) right IFG extending to insula, (2) right median cingulate and paracingulate gyri, and (3) right superior parietal gyrus (Fig. 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Contrast analyses showed that interference resolution, relative to action withholding/cancellation, produced stronger activation in the ventral attention network (left supplementary area, precentral gyrus, and superior parietal gyrus).
“Contrast analyses aiming to elucidate the unique neural substrates for each subcategory revealed that interference resolution, relative to action withholding/cancellation, produced stronger activation in the ventral attention network (the left supplementary area, precentral gyrus, and superior parietal gyrus).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Interference resolution activated the right middle frontal gyrus.
“The regions activated by interference resolution were located in a subset of the previously mentioned clusters (Fig. 3b), including the left supplementary motor area, the left inferior parietal lobule, the left precentral gyrus, the right insula, the right middle frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Interference resolution activated the right insula.
“The regions activated by interference resolution were located in a subset of the previously mentioned clusters (Fig. 3b), including the left supplementary motor area, the left inferior parietal lobule, the left precentral gyrus, the right insula, the right middle frontal gyrus, and bilateral inferior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Mapping activation patterns to a brain functional network atlas revealed that the fronto-parietal and ventral attention networks were the core neural systems commonly engaged in different processes of response inhibition.
“Mapping the activation patterns to a brain functional network atlas revealed that the fronto-parietal and ventral attention networks were the core neural systems that were commonly engaged in different processes of response inhibition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding/cancellation primarily engaged the fronto-striatal circuit.
“On the other hand, action withholding/cancellation primarily engaged the fronto-striatal circuit.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“On the other hand, action withholding/cancellation primarily engaged the fronto-striatal circuit.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
- Findingown data
The network distributions of interference resolution and action cancellation were significantly different (χ2 = 22.37, df = 6, p = 0.001).
“Chi-square analyses revealed that the network distributions of interference resolution versus action withholding/action cancellation were significantly different (interference resolution vs. action withholding, χ 2 = 19.93, df = 6, p = 0.003; interference resolution vs. action cancellation, χ 2 = 22.37, df = 6, p = 0.001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding activated the left insula, extending to the putamen.
“There were activations in the (1) right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, which extended to the insula and middle frontal gyrus; (2) right angular gyrus, which extended to the middle temporal gyrus and supramarginal gyrus; (3) right supplementary motor area, which extended to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri; (4) left insula, which extended to the putamen; and (5) right p”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action withholding activated the right angular gyrus, extending to the middle temporal gyrus and supramarginal gyrus.
“There were activations in the (1) right triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus, which extended to the insula and middle frontal gyrus; (2) right angular gyrus, which extended to the middle temporal gyrus and supramarginal gyrus; (3) right supplementary motor area, which extended to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri; (4) left insula, which extended to the putamen; and (5) right p”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Action inhibition compared to interference resolution also engages neural networks in the striatum areas, such as the putamen and pallidum.
“Notably, action inhibition compared to interference resolution also engages neural networks in the striatum areas, such as the putamen and pallidum.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Network correlate distributions of activated areas did not differ significantly between high (simple) and low (complex) frequencies of NoGo stimulus.
“We compared high (simple) and low (complex) frequencies of NoGo stimulus (i.e., equal to 50% and less than 50%, respectively) and found that the network correlate distributions of activated areas did not differ significantly (Tables S6, S7, respectively, in the Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Brain areas such as the right inferior frontal gyrus and anterior insula, distributed throughout the fronto-parietal network, as well as the right median cingulate gyrus in the ventral attentional network, are commonly activated in all of the response inhibition tasks included in the meta-analysis.
“Through synthesizing data from different tasks tapping into response inhibition, we found that brain areas such as the right inferior frontal gyrus and anterior insula, which are distributed throughout the fronto-parietal network, as well as areas such as the right MCG in the ventral attentional network, are commonly activated in all of the tasks which we included.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Independent of the task types, activation of the right hemispheric regions (the inferior frontal gyrus, insula, median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri) and the superior parietal gyrus was common across the cognitive processes studied.
“Independent of the task types, activation of the right hemispheric regions (the IFG, insula, median cingulate, and paracingulate gyri) and the superior parietal gyrus was common across the cognitive processes studied.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Mapping the activation patterns to a brain functional network atlas revealed that the fronto-parietal and the ventral attention network were the core neural systems commonly engaged during the different processes of response inhibition.
“Mapping the activation patterns to a brain functional network atlas revealed that the fronto-parietal and the ventral attention network were the core neural systems commonly engaged during the different processes of response inhibition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
The MNI/Talairach coordinate bias associated with reference frame and scale can be substantially reduced using the best-fit tal2icbm transform.
“As the MNI/Talairach coordinate bias associated with reference frame (position and orientation) and scale (brain size) can be substantially reduced using the best-fit tal2icbm transform (Lancaster et al. 2007), coordinates that were not reported in the MNI space were transformed using the Lancaster transformation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lancaster et al. 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Interference resolution is usually tested by the Stroop, Simon, Flanker, SRC, and antisaccade tasks.
“This process is usually tested by the Stroop, Simon, Flanker, SRC, and antisaccade tasks (Stahl et al. 2014; van Velzen et al. 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Study design and conductown data
Our analyses suggested that no specific paradigms disproportionately altered the results.
“Our analyses suggested that no specific paradigms disproportionately altered the results (Table 5 and Fig. S1 in Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The network correlate distributions of activated areas were not significantly different between experiments with high frequency of NoGo stimuli and those with low frequency.
“We found that the network correlate distributions of activated areas were not significantly different (Table S6 and S7 in Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Sebastian et al. (2013b) demonstrated that areas such as the IFG and bilateral parietal regions showed activation across Simon, Go/NoGo, and stop signal tasks.
“For example, Sebastian et al. (2013b), using hybrid tasks combining Simon, Go/NoGo, and stop signals, demonstrated that areas such as the IFG and the bilateral parietal regions showed activation across all tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sebastian et al. 2013b
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductown data
The network correlates distribution between all contrasts, and contrasts that only included the stop-go paradigm, did not differ at a significant level.
“we did a Chi-square test and found that the network correlates distribution between all contrasts, and contrasts that only included the stop–go paradigm did not differ at a significant level (detailed condition comparisons of each stop signal task and the results are presented in Table S8 in the Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Response inhibition is subserved by a large-scale distributed system that includes bilateral cortical and subcortical regions.
“Given that response inhibition is subserved by a large-scale distributed system that includes the bilateral cortical and subcortical regions (Swick et al. 2011), conceiving of a large-scale network rather than the classical region-based functional-anatomy analysis will be more suitable for this purpose (Woo et al. 2014; Hampshire and Sharp 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Swick et al. 2011 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The right inferior frontal gyrus, insula, and MCG may comprise the core neural network of the supervisory attentional control system needed to implement a nondominant, context-dependent behavior against a competing behavioral alternative.
“Overall, we propose that the right inferior frontal gyrus, insula, and MCG may comprise the core neural network of the supervisory attentional control system needed to implement a nondominant, context-dependent behavior against a competing behavioral alternative (Alexander and Brown 2010; Cieslik et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Higher MCG activity was observed when subjects were required to perform a dual task, e.g., deciding which hand will perform the action and when to give the response.
“Notably, higher MCG activity was observed when subjects were required to perform a dual task, e.g., deciding which hand will perform the action and when to give the response (Hoffstaedter et al. 2013, 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hoffstaedter et al. 2013, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
Response inhibition is a multidimensional cognitive process involving multiple neural regions and networks for coordinating optimal performance.
“Overall, our results suggest that response inhibition is a multidimensional cognitive process involving multiple neural regions and networks for coordinating optimal performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The right MCG is engaged in monitoring conflicts so as to promote task-relevant actions during response inhibition tasks.
“Finally, the right MCG is engaged in monitoring conflicts so as to promote task-relevant actions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Consistent involvement in a very similar network was observed in a study of the neural correlates of sustained attention.
“Similarly, consistent involvement in a very similar network was also observed in a study of the neural correlates of sustained attention (Langner and Eickhoff 2013).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Langner and Eickhoff 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductown data
The results of this meta-analysis were replicable under different validation schemes.
“The results obtained in this study were proven replicable under different validation schemes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Interference resolution, relative to action inhibition, may draw upon significant coherent activation in the ventral attention network, especially the left pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and the left superior parietal gyrus.
“Thus, inference resolution, relative to action inhibition, may draw upon significant coherent activation in the ventral attention network, especially the left pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and the left superior parietal gyrus.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The findings are in line with previous studies on the neural correlates of working memory, sustained attention, and reasoning.
“These findings are in line with the findings of previous studies on the neural correlates of working memory, sustained attention, and reasoning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Studies have suggested that the time difference in presenting the NoGo and stop signals induces distinct activation patterns, such as a greater extent of activation in the right inferior and superior frontal gyri.
“Studies have suggested that the time difference in presenting the NoGo and stop signals induces distinct activation patterns (Swick et al. 2011; Rubia et al. 2001), such as a greater extent of activation in the right inferior and superior frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationcitation
Stronger ventral attention network activation during interference resolution compared to action inhibition may indicate that the former is to a greater extent dependent on response selection processes modulated by goals and conflicts.
“Overall, stronger ventral attention network activation during interference resolution compared to action inhibition may indicate that the former is to a greater extent dependent on response selection processes modulated by goals and conflicts (Nee et al. 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nee et al. 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Participants then need to actively reorient attention to the nondominant spatial location to initiate an adequate response.
“Participants then need to actively reorient attention to the nondominant spatial location to initiate an adequate response.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The inhibitory load is likely to be higher in action cancellation than in action withholding.
“The inhibitory load is likely to be higher in cancellation than withholding (Schachar et al. 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Schachar et al. 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
The results indicate common and unique neural activation patterns for the three subcategories of processes associated with response inhibition.
“Overall, our results indicate common and unique neural activation patterns for the three subcategories of processes associated with response inhibition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Domain-oriented regions within the fronto-parietal network are widely involved in cognitive control components including response inhibition, working memory, sustained attention, and reasoning.
“Thus, domain-oriented regions within the fronto-parietal network are widely involved in cognitive control components including response inhibition, working memory, sustained attention, and reasoning (Miyake et al. 2000; Chan et al. 2008).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Interference resolution paradigms induce automatic attention reorientation and response preparation in the direction of the dominant but task-irrelevant stimuli.
“These paradigms induce an automatic attention reorientation and response preparation in the direction of the dominant but task-irrelevant stimuli.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Lesion studies suggest that lesions of the medial striatum in rodents lead to overall longer stop signal reaction time.
“Lesion studies also suggest that lesions of the medial striatum in rodents lead to overall longer stop signal reaction time (Eagle and Robbins 2003).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Eagle and Robbins 2003 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductown data
Leave-one-out cross-validation showed that all brain activation areas had highly replicable network distribution profiles.
“We adopted the leave-one-out cross-validation method to test homogeneity and determined that all brain activation areas showed highly replicable network distribution profiles (Table S9; Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Sebastian et al. (2013b) found that neural activity levels in the fronto-parietal network follow a quantitative progression: action cancellation > action withholding > interference resolution.
“Further supporting the notion of time sequence difference between action withholding and action cancellation, Sebastian et al. (2013b) used a hybrid response inhibition task to study functional and spatial segregation and the specialization of underlying neural sub-processes of response inhibition and found that neural activity levels in the fronto-parietal network follow a quantitative”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sebastian et al. (2013b)
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductcitation
The use of data generated from stop signal tasks to assess action cancellation drew more on proactive than reactive control for inhibiting inappropriate responses.
“Third, the use of the data generated from stop signal tasks to assess action cancellation drew more on proactive than reactive control for inhibiting inappropriate responses (Aron 2011; Vink et al. 2014; Van Belle et al. 2014; Vink et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Suggestions that the activity pattern in the fronto-parietal network may be derived from high demand on attentional or working memory resources were derived from meta-analyses that included less than 30 experiments and thus may not be sufficiently robust.
“However, such suggestions were derived from meta-analyses that included less than 30 experiments and thus may not be sufficiently robust (Eickhoff et al. 2016b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Eickhoff et al. 2016b
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductcitation
Simple and complex Go/NoGo tasks may not be perfectly matched across the included studies.
“As such, simple and complex Go/NoGo tasks may not be perfectly matched across the included studies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Simmonds et al. 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Individuals who are impaired in one kind of response inhibition task may also be impaired in other response inhibition tasks, because common activations unite the different response inhibition tasks, such as within the right inferior frontal gyrus.
“Regarding the core neural correlates of response inhibition, one implication is that individuals who are impaired in one kind of response inhibition task may also be impaired in other tasks, because common activations unite the different response inhibition tasks, such as within the right inferior frontal gyrus.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Patients with damaged basal ganglia are slower to stop their responses than controls.
“In line with these animal findings, patients with damaged basal ganglia are slower to stop their responses than controls (Rieger et al. 2003).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rieger et al. 2003 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
Specific neural correlates for each subcategory of response inhibition may help identify phenotypes for mental disorders such as schizophrenia and ADHD.
“Moreover, specific neural correlates for each subcategory of response inhibition may also help us to identify phenotypes for mental disorders (Van Belle et al. 2014), such as schizophrenia and ADHD.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Van Belle et al. 2014 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductown data
A supplementary Chi-square test demonstrated that the network correlate distributions between all contrasts and those contrasts that included only the Stop-Go tasks did not differ significantly.
“The result of this test demonstrated that the network correlate distributions between all contrasts and those contrasts that included only the Stop–Go tasks did not differ significantly (detailed condition comparisons of each stop signal task and the results are presented in Tables S2 and S9 in the Supplementary Materials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The use of an early version of GingerALE may lead to false positives due to overly liberal statistical results during multi-comparison tests.
“Furthermore, the use of an early version of GingerALE (e.g., Swick et al. 2011; Simmonds et al. 2008), which has had reported implementation errors, may lead to false positives due to the overly liberal statistical results during multi-comparison tests (Eickhoff et al. 2016a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Eickhoff et al. 2016a
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Individuals with motor action inhibition deficits may also demonstrate impairment in interference resolution.
“Accordingly, individuals with motor action inhibition deficits may also demonstrate impairment in interference resolution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The neural resource required increases gradually when progressing through the three stages of general information processing.
“The neural resource required increased gradually when progressing through these three stages of general information processing (Schank 2014; Marois and Ivanoff 2005).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Schank 2014
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Marois and Ivanoff 2005 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
The neural activity pattern in the striatum plus the frontal areas comprises a cortical circuit related to the control of response inhibition, specifically response execution.
“Thus, the neural activity pattern in the striatum plus the frontal areas comprises a cortical circuit related to the control of response inhibition, specifically response execution (Aron 2011).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Aron 2011 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Many functional and structural MRI studies have pointed to a fronto-striatal circuit underlying response inhibition in the Go/NoGo paradigm.
“Many functional and structural MRI studies have pointed to a fronto-striatal “circuit” underlying response inhibition in the Go/NoGo paradigm (Durston et al. 2003; Wessa et al. 2007).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
Simmonds et al. (2008) included only 11 studies in their meta-analysis.
“Simmonds et al. (2008), for example, included only 11 studies in their meta-analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Simmonds et al. (2008) source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Go/NoGo tasks also elicit striatal activation.
“Furthermore, Go/NoGo tasks also elicit striatal activation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- May combine two claims. 33
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAction withholding activations were distributed in the fronto-parietal network (39%), ventral attention network (28%), dorsal attention network (14%), and default mode network (15%).
“The activations were distributed in the fronto-parietal network (39%), the ventral attention network (28%), the dorsal attention network (14%), and the default mode network (15%) (Fig. 4c).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe activation distribution during action cancellation included the fronto-parietal network (35%), ventral attention network (38%), default mode network (16%), and dorsal attention network (8%).
“The activation distribution included the fronto-parietal network (35%), the ventral attention network (38%), the default mode network (16%), and the dorsal attention network (8%) (Fig. 4d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataInterference resolution was found to draw on the ventral attention network, while the fronto-parietal network was implicated in action withholding/cancellation.
“Interference resolution was found to draw on the ventral attention network, while fronto-parietal network was implicated in action withholding/cancellation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAcross all 225 studies with 323 experiments, areas in the dorsal lateral frontal cortex, pre-supplementary motor area, and temporal parietal junction were consistently activated during all response inhibition tasks, with activation mainly distributed in the fronto-parietal network.
“In this study, we found that across all 225 studies with 323 experiments, areas in the dorsal lateral frontal cortex, pre-supplementary motor area, and temporal parietal junction were consistently activated during all response inhibition tasks (Fig. 3a), i.e., activation was mainly distributed in the fronto-parietal network.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataInterference resolution was related to greater activation in the ventral and dorsal attention networks and involved the left supplementary area, left precentral gyrus, and left superior parietal gyrus.
“Furthermore, we observed that interference resolution, which was related to greater activation in the ventral and dorsal attention networks (Fig. 6a, b), involved the left supplementary area, the left precentral gyrus, and the left superior parietal gyrus.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningInterference resolution clusters were located at the ventral attention network (45%), dorsal attention network (27%), and fronto-parietal network (20%).
“Based on the reported characterizations of functional neural networks, these clusters appeared to be located at the ventral attention network (45%), the dorsal attention network (27%), and the fronto-parietal network (20%) (Table 1; Fig. 4b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataDuring action cancellation, significant activation (p < 0.05, FWE corrected across the entire brain) was observed in bilateral insula extending to basal ganglia and inferior frontal gyrus, right supplementary motor area extending to median cingulate and paracingulate gyri, bilateral superior temporal gyri, and right inferior parietal lobule.
“The activated regions included the bilateral insula cortex, which extended to the basal ganglia (e.g., caudate and putamen) and inferior frontal gyrus; the right supplementary motor area, which extended to the median cingulate and paracingulate gyri; the bilateral superior temporal gyri; and the right inferior parietal lobule (Table 3; Fig. 3d).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSubtraction analyses revealed distinct neural substrates for interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation, indicating that some specific neural correlates are involved in different categories of response inhibition tasks.
“Meanwhile, subtraction analyses suggested that some specific neural correlates are involved in different categories of response inhibition tasks”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“Subtraction analyses elucidated the distinct neural substrates of interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationResponse inhibition is correlated with the connections between the cingulo-opercular network (salience network) and fronto-parietal network.
“Indeed, studies have suggested that response inhibition is correlated with the connections between the cingulo-opercular network (salience network) and fronto-parietal network, and that default mode network activity might be actively downregulated by an inhibitory module within the fronto-parietal network (Leech et al. 2011).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leech et al. 2011 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationUnique neural networks for the three subcategories of processes underpinning response inhibition have been suggested.
“Nonetheless, unique neural networks for the three subcategories of processes underpinning response inhibition have also been suggested (Rubia et al. 2001; Sebastian et al. 2013b; Chevrier et al. 2007; van Velzen et al. 2014; Sebastian et al. 2013a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationDysfunctional response inhibition is a core symptom observed in various mental disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, and depression, as well as learning difficulties and behavioral problems.
“Dysfunctional response inhibition is a core symptom observed in various mental disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Schachar et al. 2007), schizophrenia (Vercammen et al. 2012), and depression (Palazidou 2012), as well as learning difficulties (Eickhoff et al. 2009) and behavioral problems (Liu et al. 2012).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataRandom selections of 68 contrasts from action withholding and action cancellation were performed to test the effect of the experiment numbers, and the MKDA analysis was repeated using the same settings.
“Random selections of 68 contrasts from action withholding and action cancellation were performed to test the effect of the experiment numbers. We repeated the MKDA analysis using the same settings, and Chi-square analyses were performed to compare the activated voxels in the seven network correlates to those of our main analyses and the random selected studies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationParadigms such as the Stroop, Flanker, Simon, stimulus response compatibility (SRC), antisaccade, stop signal, and Go/NoGo tasks are commonly regarded as involving inhibitory action control and are commonly used to investigate response inhibition mechanisms.
“Paradigms such as the stroop, Flanker, Simon, stimulus response compatibility (SRC), antisaccade tasks, stop signal, and Go/NoGo tasks, which require a response to a target stimulus among irrelevant/distracting stimuli, are commonly regarded as paradigms that involve inhibitory action control (Nigg 2000) and are commonly used for the investigation of response inhibition mechanisms (Nee et al. 2007”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe reported meta-analytic results represent consistently activated regions across studies: regions in which significant activations were observed in the local neighborhood by more studies than would be expected by chance (p < 0.05, FWE corrected across the entire brain).
“Thus, the reported meta-analytic results in this study represent consistently activated regions across studies: regions in which significant activations were observed in the local neighborhood by more studies than would be expected by chance (p < 0.05, FWE corrected across the entire brain).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe family wise error rate was estimated with a Monte Carlo simulation to correct for multiple comparisons, with a null hypothesis that activated regions are randomly distributed throughout the brain.
“The family wise error (FWE) rate was estimated with a Monte Carlo simulation to correct for multiple comparisons, and a natural null hypothesis was that the “activated” regions are randomly distributed throughout the brain.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe Simon task (interference resolution) stimulates pre-motor and parietal regions to a greater extent than action cancellation (stop signals).
“For example, the Simon task (interference resolution) was found to stimulate the pre-motor and parietal regions to a greater extent than action cancellation (stop signals), whereas action cancellation was found to elicit stronger activation in the bilateral posterior inferior frontal gyrus/insula and the right striatum than action withholding (Go/NoGo) (Sebastian et al. 2013b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sebastian et al. 2013b
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe same statistical analyses and thresholding approaches were applied for all meta-analyses in this study.
“The same statistical analyses and thresholding approaches were applied for all meta-analyses in this study.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe stop signal task is conceptualized as an action cancellation task.
“We classified stop signal tasks as those that trigger action cancellation (Aron et al. 2004; Schachar et al. 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAction cancellation elicits stronger activation in the bilateral posterior inferior frontal gyrus/insula and the right striatum than action withholding (Go/NoGo).
“For example, the Simon task (interference resolution) was found to stimulate the pre-motor and parietal regions to a greater extent than action cancellation (stop signals), whereas action cancellation was found to elicit stronger activation in the bilateral posterior inferior frontal gyrus/insula and the right striatum than action withholding (Go/NoGo) (Sebastian et al. 2013b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sebastian et al. 2013b
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDefault mode network activity might be actively downregulated by an inhibitory module within the fronto-parietal network.
“Indeed, studies have suggested that response inhibition is correlated with the connections between the cingulo-opercular network (salience network) and fronto-parietal network, and that default mode network activity might be actively downregulated by an inhibitory module within the fronto-parietal network (Leech et al. 2011).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leech et al. 2011 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPre-SMA is associated with monitoring and selecting appropriate motor response output, and the superior parietal gyrus has an essential role in re-directing attention by promoting attention allocation to nonspatial properties of stimuli.
“Pre-SMA is associated with monitoring and selecting appropriate motor response output (Nachev et al. 2008; Iannaccone et al. 2015) and the superior parietal gyrus has an essential role in re-directing attention by promoting attention allocation to nonspatial properties of stimuli (Mevorach et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningWhen performing response inhibition tasks, individuals need to maintain task requirements across trials and goal-corresponding action inhibition through engagement of the right IFG.
“Based on the previous findings and the current results on the common areas involved in different response inhibition tasks, we argue that when performing these tasks, individuals need to maintain task requirements across trials and goal-corresponding action inhibition through engagement of the right IFG.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationThe activation differences observed between action withholding and action cancellation suggest that these two processes may interact at different times within the action generation or action inhibition process, thus jointly influencing motor response inhibition.
“The activation differences observed between these two processes suggest that action withholding and cancellation may interact at different times within the action generation or action inhibition process, thus jointly influencing motor response inhibition (Sebastian et al. 2013a; Dambacher et al. 2014; Cieslik et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAction withholding encompasses future action selection and inhibition, whereas action cancellation goes beyond this to demand inhibition of an ongoing response.
“Action withholding encompasses future action selection and inhibition, whereas action cancellation goes beyond this to demand inhibition of an ongoing response.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe right insula is required to overcome preponderant tendencies, notice salient stimuli, and coordinate various control mechanisms during response inhibition tasks.
“In contrast, the right insula is required to overcome preponderant tendencies, notice the salient stimuli, and coordinate various control mechanisms.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationNee et al. (2013) reported widespread bilateral fronto-parietal network activation during various types of working memory tasks.
“Nee et al. (2013) reported that there was widespread bilateral fronto-parietal network activation during various types of working memory tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nee et al. (2013) source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationThe right IFG facilitates infrequent action-related events by activating nondominant but relevant responses while inhibiting automatic but irrelevant actions at the same time.
“The right IFG, besides detecting changes in stimulus features (Sharp et al. 2010; Dodds et al. 2010), facilitates infrequent action-related events by activating nondominant but relevant responses while inhibiting automatic but irrelevant actions at the same time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe MCG has been implicated in performance monitoring via conflict detection, reallocation of attentional resources according to task-relevant information, and corresponding action formation.
“Moreover, the MCG has also been implicated in performance monitoring via conflict detection in information processing, reallocation of attentional resources according to task-relevant information, and corresponding action formation (Badzakova-Trajkov et al. 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Badzakova-Trajkov et al. 2009 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataSimilar results were detected when input contrast counts were taken into account, demonstrating that the neural network involved in response inhibition was stable and robust.
“Notably, similar results were also detected when input contrast counts were taken into account (Tables S5, S9), which demonstrated that the neural network involved in response inhibition was stable and robust.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationLesion studies indicate that stop signal task performance worsens as the size of an inferior frontal gyrus lesion increases, supporting an inhibitory role of the inferior frontal gyrus in resolving conflicts during response execution.
“Along this line of thought, lesion studies have also indicated that stop signal task performance worsens as the size of an inferior frontal gyrus lesion increases (Aron et al. 2003), which supports an inhibitory role of the inferior frontal gyrus in resolving conflicts during response execution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Aron et al. 2003 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationBy synthesizing semantic and visuospatial analogy tasks, Hobeika et al. (2016) observed domain-oriented regions in the inferior and middle frontal gyri.
“By synthesizing semantic and visuospatial analogy tasks, Hobeika et al. (2016) observed that there were domain-oriented regions in the inferior and middle frontal gyri.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hobeika et al. (2016) source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningThis process may require enhanced consideration of the objective and engagement of resources for conflict management.
“This process may require enhanced consideration of the objective and engagement of resources for conflict management.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFriedman and Miyake (2004) indicated that subjects might experience several different mental processes during response inhibition tasks: maintaining the stimulus, detecting conflicts, overcoming preponderant tendencies, and choosing correct responses.
“Friedman and Miyake 2004 indicated that subjects might experience several different mental processes during response inhibition tasks: maintaining the stimulus, which requires appropriate response in working memory; detecting conflicts for stimuli inconsistent with the goal; overcoming preponderant tendencies; and choosing correct responses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Friedman and Miyake 2004 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe observation of common activation across paradigm classes is in line with previous meta-analytic studies on the topic.
“This observation is in line with the finding of previous meta-analytic studies on the topic (e.g., Cieslik et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cieslik et al. 2015 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe experimental paradigms classified as evoking interference resolution were those that required conflict resolution and inhibition of response tendencies for successful responding.
“In this meta-analysis, the experimental paradigms classified as evoking interference resolution were those that required conflict resolution and inhibition of response tendencies for successful responding (Nee et al. 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nee et al. 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe right anterior insula has been proposed to represent a hub that controls brain activity across different tasks and stimulus modalities to initiate and adjust cognitive control mechanisms.
“The right anterior insula has been proposed to represent a hub that controls brain activity across different tasks and stimulus modalities to initiate and adjust cognitive control mechanisms (Cai et al. 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cai et al. 2014 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPrevious research has demonstrated a linear relationship between neural activity of the anterior insula and task performance across three response inhibition tasks (Flanker, Go/NoGo etc.).
“The previous research has demonstrated a linear relationship between the neural activity of the anterior insula and task performance across three response inhibition tasks (Flanker, Go/NoGo etc.) (Wager et al. 2005), which were included in the current meta-analysis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Wager et al. 2005 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThree stages of general information processing exist: stimulus identification, response selection, and response execution (motor stage).
“Three stages of general information processing exist: stimulus identification, response selection, and response execution, or the motor stage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationNee et al. (2007) reported that unique neural activity patterns were associated with different response inhibition tasks, but they did not compare these tasks to each other.
“Moreover, Nee et al. (2007) reported that unique neural activity patterns were associated with different response inhibitions tasks, but they did not compare these tasks to each other.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nee et al. (2007) source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPrevious meta-analyses are limited in that they focus on a single subcategory of response inhibition, include a small sample size, fail to compare subcategories directly, or use a less reliable version of GingerALE.
“These studies are limited, however, in that they focus on a single subcategory of response inhibition (e.g., action withholding using the Go/NoGo task only in Simmonds et al. 2008), included a small sample size (Criaud and Boulinguez 2013; Simmonds et al. 2008; Buchsbaum et al. 2005), failed to compare subcategories directly (Nee et al. 2007), or used a less reliable version of GingerALE (Eickhoff”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationThe progressive increase of neural activations by interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation may imply that response inhibition contains subcomponents that interact in a sequential fashion, with action withholding as an intermediate process within the sequence.
“Herein, the progressive increase of neural activations by interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation may imply that response inhibition may contain subcomponents that interact in a sequential fashion; action withholding is an intermediate process within the sequence of interference resolution, action withholding, and action cancellation (Sebastian et al. 2013a, b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sebastian et al. 2013a, b
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataResponse inhibition is not a unidimensional construct but consists of subcategories of cognitive processes that engage common as well as distinct neural correlates and networks.
“Instead, response inhibition could be a multidimensional construct consisting of multiple subcategories of cognitive processes, which recruit both common and distinct neural correlates, and hence neural networks.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
“Overall, our results suggest that response inhibition is not a unidimensional construct but consists of subcategories of cognitive processes that engage common as well as distinct neural correlates and networks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationResponse inhibition is one core component of cognitive control, and its neural correlates may co-exist with other components of cognitive control.
“This suggests that response inhibition is one core component of cognitive control, and its neural correlates may also co-exist with other components of cognitive control (Duncan 2010).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Duncan 2010 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn a neurophysiological experiment, striatal activity was recorded while monkeys performed a Go/NoGo task; the authors found that the striatum could be important for preparing to stop a response and then implementing inhibitory control over a sustained period.
“In a neurophysiological experiment, striatal activity was recorded, while monkeys were performing a Go/NoGo task. The authors found that the striatum could be important for preparing to stop a response (under working memory) and then implementing inhibitory control over a sustained period (Apicella et al. 1992).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Apicella et al. 1992 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIt has been suggested that the replicability of meta-analyses including less than 30 studies is limited, and the conclusions drawn may therefore be questionable.
“It has been suggested that the replicability of meta-analyses including less than 30 studies is limited, and the conclusions drawn may, therefore, be questionable (Eickhoff et al. 2016b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Eickhoff et al. 2016b
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningPrecise knowledge of the distinct profiles of response inhibition subcomponents will advance diagnostic accuracy.
“Similar studies have begun to emerge (Johnstone et al. 2009), and precise knowledge of the distinct profiles of response inhibition subcomponents will advance diagnostic accuracy.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe meta-analysis included studies adopting a mixture of inhibitory control tasks (Stroop, Simon, and Flanker), with the consequence of increased heterogeneity of study paradigm and designs.
“Our meta-analysis included studies adopting a mixture of inhibitory control tasks, such as the Stroop, Simon, and Flanker tasks, with the consequence of increased heterogeneity of study paradigm and designs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningEnhanced performance in one or two response inhibition tasks may improve the efficiency of the right inferior frontal gyrus-based inhibition process and produce long-term benefits that affect regulation across multiple response inhibition contexts.
“However, enhanced performance in one or two response inhibition tasks may improve the efficiency of the right inferior frontal gyrus-based inhibition process and produce long-term benefits that affect regulation across multiple response inhibition contexts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationBoth action withholding and action cancellation are impaired in ADHD individuals.
“Both action withholding and cancellation are impaired in ADHD individuals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Schachar et al. 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn methamphetamine abusers, a specific deficit in inhibiting proponent motor responses during the stop signal task and cognitive inhibition in the Stroop task was observed.
“For example, a specific deficit in inhibiting proponent motor responses during the stop signal task (Mittner et al. 2014) as well as cognitive inhibition in the Stroop task (Lynn et al. 2014; Ganos et al. 2014) was observed in methamphetamine abusers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
The paper relies on this without support.
The majority of previous studies on response inhibition have either explored only a single response inhibition task in small samples with limited statistical power or were challenging to compare because they employed various different stimuli, hindering complete conclusions.
“Although the above findings provide important preliminary evidence of the potential common and distinct neural underpinnings of different response inhibition tasks, the majority of studies have either explored only a single response inhibition task in small samples with limited statistical power or were challenging to compare, because they employed various different stimuli (e.g., visual, auditory”
The paper relies on this without support.
Response inhibition tasks all require the suppression of an inappropriate action and the concurrent initiation and execution of a context-appropriate alternative.
“all require the suppression of an inappropriate action and the concurrent initiation and execution of the context-appropriate alternative”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three subcategories of response inhibition (interference resolution, action withholding, action cancellation) are valid and distinct categories for classifying the included paradigms.
“the three subcategories of processes associated with response inhibition”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These networks are differentially engaged by different types of inhibitory control tasks.
“These networks are differentially engaged by different types of inhibitory control tasks (Hung et al., 2018, Zhang et al., 2017).”
From Inhibitory control in obsessive compulsive disorder: a systematic review and activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (2022) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2017
Inhibitory control is not a unitary construct; it includes dissociable subprocesses underpinned by distinct and only partially overlapping networks.
“In addition, inhibitory control is not a unitary construct. Rather, inhibitory control is an umbrella term which includes dissociable subprocesses that are underpinned by distinct and only partially overlapping networks (Hung et al., 2018, Swick et al., 2011, Zhang et al., 2017).”
From Inhibitory control in obsessive compulsive disorder: a systematic review and activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (2022) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Reported total foci do not equal the three category totals
MajorThe reported category counts are 817 foci for interference resolution, 1932 for action withholding, and 1523 for action cancellation. They sum to 4272, not the stated all-inclusive total of 3453 foci.
Reported 3453 · recomputed 4272
“First, we identified those brain regions that showed significant convergence across 225 studies comprising 3453 foci from 323 contrasts.”
Caudate activation is assigned to opposite hemispheres
MinorThe results text identifies a right caudate difference favoring action withholding, while the corresponding action-withholding-greater-than-cancellation row in Table 4 identifies the caudate as left-sided.
“Brain areas in bilateral insula and the right caudate showed greater activation during action withholding than action cancellation (Fig. 6e).”
“| Caudate | L | −10 | 10 | −2 | 0.11 | 36 |”
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798 · see citing works
The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Thomas Yeo, B. T., Krienen, F. M., Sepulcre, J., Sabuncu, M. R., Lashkari, D., Hollinshead, M., Roffman, J. L., Smoller, J. W., Zöllei, L., Polimeni, J. R., et al. (2011) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00338.2011 · Cited by 9,182 · see citing works
The organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Buckner, R. L., Krienen, F. M., Castellanos, A., Diaz, J. C., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2011) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00339.2011 · Cited by 7,304 · see citing works
Correspondence of the brain's functional architecture during activation and rest
Smith, S. M., Fox, P. T., Miller, K. L., Glahn, D. C., Fox, P. M., Mackay, C. E., Filippini, N., Watkins, K. E., Toro, R., Laird, A. R., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0905267106 · Cited by 5,150 · see citing works
Consistent resting-state networks across healthy subjects
Damoiseaux, J. S., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., Barkhof, F., Scheltens, P., Stam, C. J., Smith, S. M., & Beckmann, C. F. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601417103 · Cited by 4,326 · see citing works
Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.010 · Cited by 3,197 · see citing works
The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 · Cited by 2,309 · see citing works
The role of the posterior cingulate cortex in cognition and disease
Leech, R., & Sharp, D. J. (2014) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awt162 · Cited by 2,247 · see citing works
Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003 · Cited by 2,166 · see citing works
Nigg, J. T. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220 · Cited by 1,941 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…a response to a target stimulus among irrelevant/distracting stimuli, are commonly regarded as paradigms that involve inhibitory action control (Nigg 2000) and are commonly used for the investigation of response inhibitionmechanisms (Nee et al. 2007; vanVelzen et al. 2014; Swick et al. 2011;…”
BackgroundFunctional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas
Nachev, P., Kennard, C., & Husain, M. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2478 · Cited by 1,928 · see citing works
Eickhoff, S. B., Laird, A. R., Grefkes, C., Wang, L. E., Zilles, K., & Fox, P. T. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20718 · Cited by 1,924 · see citing works
The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour
Duncan, J. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004 · Cited by 1,846 · see citing works
Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans
Aron, A. R., Fletcher, P. C., Bullmore, E. T., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1003 · Cited by 1,771 · see citing works
Bias between MNI and Talairach coordinates analyzed using the ICBM‐152 brain template
Lancaster, J. L., Tordesillas‐Gutiérrez, D., Martinez, M., Salinas, F., Evans, A., Zilles, K., Mazziotta, J. C., & Fox, P. T. (2007) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20345 · Cited by 1,464 · see citing works
Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues.
CHAN, R., SHUM, D., TOULOPOULOU, T., & CHEN, E. (2008) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010 · Cited by 1,401 · see citing works
The role of the right inferior frontal gyrus: inhibition and attentional control
Hampshire, A., Chamberlain, S. R., Monti, M. M., Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.109 · Cited by 1,327 · see citing works
Cluster-extent based thresholding in fMRI analyses: Pitfalls and recommendations
Woo, C.-W., Krishnan, A., & Wager, T. D. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.058 · Cited by 1,253 · see citing works
Aron, A. R. (2011) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.024 · Cited by 1,236 · see citing works
Conceptual Information Processing
(1975) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-12220-9 · Cited by 1,235 · see citing works
The Neural Basis of Inhibition in Cognitive Control
Aron, A. R. (2007) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858407299288 · Cited by 1,098 · see citing works
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1996) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0129 · Cited by 1,072 · see citing works
Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2008) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015 · Cited by 1,015 · see citing works
Rubia, K., Russell, T., Overmeyer, S., Brammer, M. J., Bullmore, E. T., Sharma, T., Simmons, A., Williams, S. C. R., Giampietro, V., Andrew, C. M., et al. (2001) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0685 · Cited by 999 · see citing works
Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and parietal cortex
Fedorenko, E., Duncan, J., & Kanwisher, N. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1315235110 · Cited by 952 · see citing works
Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience
Chambers, C. D., Garavan, H., & Bellgrove, M. A. (2009) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.016 · Cited by 938 · see citing works
Capacity limits of information processing in the brain
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.010 · Cited by 928 · see citing works
Interference resolution: Insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks
NEE, D. E., WAGER, T. D., & JONIDES, J. (2007) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.7.1.1 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
Leech, R., Kamourieh, S., Beckmann, C. F., & Sharp, D. J. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5626-10.2011 · Cited by 759 · see citing works
Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0030694 · Cited by 746 · see citing works
The organization of the human striatum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Choi, E. Y., Yeo, B. T. T., & Buckner, R. L. (2012) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00270.2012 · Cited by 746 · see citing works
Eickhoff, S. B., Nichols, T. E., Laird, A. R., Hoffstaedter, F., Amunts, K., Fox, P. T., Bzdok, D., & Eickhoff, C. R. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.072 · Cited by 683 · see citing works
Swick, D., Ashley, V., & Turken, U. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.070 · Cited by 638 · see citing works
Differential patterns of striatal activation in young children with and without ADHD
Durston, S., Tottenham, N. T., Thomas, K. M., Davidson, M. C., Eigsti, I.-M., Yang, Y., Ulug, A. M., & Casey, B. J. (2003) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01904-2 · Cited by 619 · see citing works
Inhibitory Mechanisms and the Control of Attention
Hasher, L., Lustig, C., & Zacks, R. T. (2008) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168648.003.0009 · Cited by 553 · see citing works
A Meta-analysis of Executive Components of Working Memory
Nee, D. E., Brown, J. W., Askren, M. K., Berman, M. G., Demiralp, E., Krawitz, A., & Jonides, J. (2013) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs007 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Distinct frontal systems for response inhibition, attentional capture, and error processing
Sharp, D. J., Bonnelle, V., De Boissezon, X., Beckmann, C. F., James, S. G., Patel, M. C., & Mehta, M. A. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1000175107 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Common and unique components of response inhibition revealed by fMRI
Wager, T. D., Sylvester, C.-Y. C., Lacey, S. C., Nee, D. E., Franklin, M., & Jonides, J. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.054 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
Meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies of the Wisconsin Card‐Sorting task and component processes
Buchsbaum, B. R., Greer, S., Chang, W., & Berman, K. F. (2005) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20128 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging data: current and future directions
Wager, T. D., Lindquist, M., & Kaplan, L. (2007) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsm015 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
Liu, X., Banich, M. T., Jacobson, B. L., & Tanabe, J. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.033 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
The cognitive atlas: toward a knowledge foundation for cognitive neuroscience
Poldrack, R. A., Kittur, A., Kalar, D., Miller, E., Seppa, C., Gil, Y., Parker, D. S., Sabb, F. W., & Bilder, R. M. (2011) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00017 · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Criaud, M., & Boulinguez, P. (2013) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.003 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Cai, W., Ryali, S., Chen, T., Li, C.-S. R., & Menon, V. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3048-14.2014 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Three key regions for supervisory attentional control: Evidence from neuroimaging meta-analyses
Cieslik, E. C., Mueller, V. I., Eickhoff, C. R., Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2015) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.11.003 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Behavioral components of impulsivity.
Stahl, C., Voss, A., Schmitz, F., Nuszbaum, M., Tüscher, O., Lieb, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0033981 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Neuronal activity in monkey striatum related to the expectation of predictable environmental events
Apicella, P., Scarnati, E., Ljungberg, T., & Schultz, W. (1992) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1992.68.3.945 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Restraint and cancellation: multiple inhibition deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Schachar, R., Logan, G. D., Robaey, P., Chen, S., Ickowicz, A., & Barr, C. (2007) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9075-2 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
The neurobiology of depression
Palazidou, E. (2012) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/lds004 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Frontosubthalamic Circuits for Control of Action and Cognition
Aron, A. R., Herz, D. M., Brown, P., Forstmann, B. U., & Zaghloul, K. A. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2348-16.2016 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Chevrier, A. D., Noseworthy, M. D., & Schachar, R. (2007) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20355 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Dodds, C. M., Morein-Zamir, S., & Robbins, T. W. (2011) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq187 · Cited by 270 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The right IFG, besides detecting changes in stimulus features (Sharp et al. 2010; Dodds et al. 2010), facilitates infrequent action-related events by activating nondominant but relevant responses while inhibiting automatic but irrelevant actions at the same time.”
BackgroundImplementation errors in the GingerALE Software: Description and recommendations
Eickhoff, S. B., Laird, A. R., Fox, P. M., Lancaster, J. L., & Fox, P. T. (2016) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.23342 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Eagle, D. M., & Robbins, T. W. (2003) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.6.1302 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
A functional network perspective on response inhibition and attentional control
Erika-Florence, M., Leech, R., & Hampshire, A. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5073 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Damage to the Salience Network and Interactions with the Default Mode Network
Jilka, S., Scott, G., Ham, T., Pickering, A. D., Bonnelle, V., Braga, R. M., Leech, R., & Sharp, D. J. (2014) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0518-14.2014 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
When the Brain Takes a Break: A Model-Based Analysis of Mind Wandering
Mittner, M., Boekel, W., Tucker, A. M., Turner, B. M., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2062-14.2014 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Wang, J., Yang, Y., Fan, L., Xu, J., Li, C., Liu, Y., Fox, P. T., Eickhoff, S. B., Yu, C., & Jiang, T. (2014) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.22626 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Fronto-Striatal Overactivation in Euthymic Bipolar Patients During an Emotional Go/NoGo Task
Wessa, M., Houenou, J., Paillère-Martinot, M.-L., Berthoz, S., Artiges, E., Leboyer, M., & Martinot, J.-L. (2007) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2007.164.4.638 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Pinning down response inhibition in the brain — Conjunction analyses of the Stop-signal task
Boehler, C. N., Appelbaum, L. G., Krebs, R. M., Hopf, J., & Woldorff, M. G. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.276 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Conflict monitoring and error processing: New insights from simultaneous EEG–fMRI
Iannaccone, R., Hauser, T. U., Staempfli, P., Walitza, S., Brandeis, D., & Brem, S. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.028 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Contrasting network and modular perspectives on inhibitory control
Hampshire, A., & Sharp, D. J. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.06.006 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Computational Models of Performance Monitoring and Cognitive Control
Alexander, W. H., & Brown, J. W. (2010) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01085.x · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Disentangling common and specific neural subprocesses of response inhibition
Sebastian, A., Pohl, M. F., Klöppel, S., Feige, B., Lange, T., Stahl, C., Voss, A., Klauer, K. C., Lieb, K., & Tüscher, O. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.020 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Inhibition of ongoing responses following frontal, nonfrontal, and basal ganglia lesions.
Rieger, M., Gauggel, S., & Burmeister, K. (2003) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.272 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Expectations and violations: Delineating the neural network of proactive inhibitory control
Zandbelt, B. B., Bloemendaal, M., Neggers, S. F. W., Kahn, R. S., & Vink, M. (2012) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.22047 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Cognitive neuroscience 2.0: building a cumulative science of human brain function
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R. A., Van Essen, D. C., & Wager, T. D. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.004 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Meta-Analysis in Human Neuroimaging: Computational Modeling of Large-Scale Databases
Fox, P. T., Lancaster, J. L., Laird, A. R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2014) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170320 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
The “What” and “When” of Self-Initiated Movements
Hoffstaedter, F., Grefkes, C., Zilles, K., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2013) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr391 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Hoffstaedter, F., Grefkes, C., Caspers, S., Roski, C., Palomero‐Gallagher, N., Laird, A. R., Fox, P. T., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2014) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.22363 · Cited by 164 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Notably, higher MCG activity was observed when subjects were required to perform a dual task, e.g., deciding which hand will perform the action and when to give the response (Hoffstaedter et al. 2013, 2014).”
BackgroundResponse Inhibition and Interference Control in Obsessive–Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
van Velzen, L. S., Vriend, C., de Wit, S. J., & van den Heuvel, O. A. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00419 · Cited by 159 · cited 4× · see citing works
“This process can be captured by stimulus response incompatibility tasks, such as the Stroop, Simon, Flanker, and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test paradigms (Stahl et al. 2014; van Velzen et al. 2014).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialvan Belle, J., Vink, M., Durston, S., & Zandbelt, B. B. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.014 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Response inhibition and interference control in children with AD/HD: A visual ERP investigation
Johnstone, S. J., Barry, R. J., Markovska, V., Dimoska, A., & Clarke, A. R. (2008) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.007 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Differential effects of age on subcomponents of response inhibition
Sebastian, A., Baldermann, C., Feige, B., Katzev, M., Scheller, E., Hellwig, B., Lieb, K., Weiller, C., Tüscher, O., & Klöppel, S. (2013) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.03.013 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Badzakova-Trajkov, G., Barnett, K. J., Waldie, K. E., & Kirk, I. J. (2009) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.11.069 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Vink, M., Zandbelt, B. B., Gladwin, T., Hillegers, M., Hoogendam, J. M., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Du Plessis, S., & Kahn, R. S. (2014) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.22483 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Inhibitory control in mind and brain 2.0: Blocked-input models of saccadic countermanding.
Logan, G. D., Yamaguchi, M., Schall, J. D., & Palmeri, T. J. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0038893 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
The neural correlates of tic inhibition in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome
Ganos, C., Kahl, U., Brandt, V., Schunke, O., Bäumer, T., Thomalla, G., Roessner, V., Haggard, P., Münchau, A., & Kühn, S. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.007 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Hobeika, L., Diard‐Detoeuf, C., Garcin, B., Levy, R., & Volle, E. (2016) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.23149 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Neural Correlates of Inhibition and Contextual Cue Processing Related to Treatment Response in PTSD
van Rooij, S. J., Geuze, E., Kennis, M., Rademaker, A. R., & Vink, M. (2015) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2014.220 · Cited by 94 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Different contrast conditions for Go/NoGo tasks exist, e.g., ‘‘NoGo’’ trials vs. ‘‘Go’’ trials and ‘‘NoGo’’ vs. fixation cross as baseline (e.g., van Rooij et al. 2015) or a low-level baseline (e.g., Claus and Hendershot 2015).”
Liu, J., Zubieta, J.-K., & Heitzeg, M. M. (2012) · Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.05.008 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Dambacher, F., Sack, A. T., Lobbestael, J., Arntz, A., Brugman, S., & Schuhmann, T. (2014) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12425 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
The role of stop‐signal probability and expectation in proactive inhibition
Vink, M., Kaldewaij, R., Zandbelt, B. B., Pas, P., & du Plessis, S. (2015) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12879 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Ten years of inhibition revisited
Diane Swick, A., & Chatham, C. H. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00329 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Vercammen, A., Morris, R., Green, M. J., Lenroot, R., Kulkarni, J., Carr, V. J., Weickert, C. S., & Weickert, T. W. (2012) · Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · doi:10.1503/jpn.110088 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
The Left Intraparietal Sulcus Modulates the Selection of Low Salient Stimuli
Mevorach, C., Shalev, L., Allen, H. A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21044 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Controlling the self: The role of the dorsal frontomedian cortex in intentional inhibition
Lynn, M. T., Muhle-Karbe, P. S., & Brass, M. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.009 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Claus, E. D., & Hendershot, C. S. (2014) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3711-2 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Stop and Think about Basal Ganglia Functional Organization: The Pallido-Striatal “Stop” Route
Deffains, M., Iskhakova, L., & Bergman, H. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.003 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Review of Heterogeneity in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Luo, Y., Weibman, D., Halperin, J. M., & Li, X. (2019) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00042 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
“Abnormal functional activation and connectivity in OFC and DLPFC have been suggested to influence behavioral inhibition, rewardmotivation issues, working memory, attention, planning, and executive control in children with ADHD (Schulz et al., 2004; Bush, 2010; Wilbertz et al., 2012; Janssen et al., 2015; Zhang et al.,…”
BackgroundImaging suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a comprehensive review of 2 decades of neuroimaging studies
Schmaal, L., van Harmelen, A.-L., Chatzi, V., Lippard, E. T. C., Toenders, Y. J., Averill, L. A., Mazure, C. M., & Blumberg, H. P. (2020) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0587-x · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Lukito, S., Norman, L., Carlisi, C., Radua, J., Hart, H., Simonoff, E., & Rubia, K. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720000574 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Norman, L. J., Taylor, S. F., Liu, Y., Radua, J., Chye, Y., De Wit, S. J., Huyser, C., Karahanoglu, F. I., Luks, T., Manoach, D., et al. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.11.010 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Hartwigsen, G., Neef, N. E., Camilleri, J. A., Margulies, D. S., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2018) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy049 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Adolescent Substance Use and the Brain: Behavioral, Cognitive and Neuroimaging Correlates
Hamidullah, S., Thorpe, H. H. A., Frie, J. A., McCurdy, R. D., & Khokhar, J. Y. (2020) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00298 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Gupta, R. S., Kujawa, A., & Vago, D. R. (2019) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.08.006 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Baseline brain function in the preadolescents of the ABCD Study
Chaarani, B., Hahn, S., Allgaier, N. A., Adise, S., Owens, M. M., Juliano, A., Yuan, D., Loso, H., Ivanciu, A., Albaugh, M. D., et al. (2021) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00867-9 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Apšvalka, D., Ferreira, C. S., Schmitz, T. W., Rowe, J. B., & Anderson, M. C. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27926-w · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Westwood, S. J., Raduà, J., & Rubia, K. (2021) · Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · doi:10.1503/jpn.190179 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
White matter tracts and executive functions: a review of causal and correlation evidence
Ribeiro, M., Yordanova, Y. N., Noblet, V., Herbet, G., & Ricard, D. (2023) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awad308 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
MacNamara, A., Joyner, K. J., & Klawohn, J. (2022) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.03.008 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Chan, M. M. Y., Yau, S. S. Y., & Han, Y. M. Y. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.035 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Papitto, G., Friederici, A. D., & Zaccarella, E. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116321 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Acute Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Executive Function and Attention in Adult Patients With ADHD
Mehren, A., Özyurt, J., Lam, A. P., Brandes, M., Müller, H., Thiel, C. M., & Philipsen, A. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00132 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Neural Mechanisms of Domain-general Inhibitory Control
Wessel, J. R., & Anderson, M. C. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.09.008 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Feng, C., Eickhoff, S. B., Li, T., Wang, L., Becker, B., Camilleri, J. A., Hétu, S., & Luo, Y. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.025 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Rodríguez-Nieto, G., Seer, C., Sidlauskaite, J., Vleugels, L., Van Roy, A., Hardwick, R., & Swinnen, S. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119665 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
The neurocognitive underpinnings of the Simon effect: An integrative review of current research
Cespón, J., Hommel, B., Korsch, M., & Galashan, D. (2020) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00836-y · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Activity and Connectivity Differences Underlying Inhibitory Control Across the Adult Life Span
Tsvetanov, K. A., Ye, Z., Hughes, L. E., Samu, D., Treder, M. S., Wolpe, N., TYLER, L. K., & Rowe, J. B. (2018) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2919-17.2018 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Tozzi, L., Goldstein‐Piekarski, A. N., Korgaonkar, M. S., & Williams, L. M. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.08.005 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Zhang, R., Lam, C. L. M., Peng, X., Zhang, D., Zhang, C., Huang, R., & Lee, T. M. C. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.026 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Self-citationConflicted between goal-directed and habitual control, an fMRI investigation
Watson, P., van Wingen, G., & de Wit, S. (2018) · eneuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0240-18.2018 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
The prefrontal cortex: from monkey to man
Lévy, R. (2023) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awad389 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Chen, T., Becker, B., Camilleri, J. A., Wang, L., Yu, S., Eickhoff, S. B., & Feng, C. (2018) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-018-1727-9 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Yu, M., Gao, X., Niu, X., Zhang, M., Yang, Z., Han, S., Cheng, J., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1070142 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Intensity-Dependent Effects of Acute Exercise on Executive Function
Mehren, A., Luque, C. D., Brandes, M., Lam, A. P., Thiel, C. M., Philipsen, A., & Özyurt, J. (2019) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2019/8608317 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Inhibitory Control in Aging: The Compensation-Related Utilization of Neural Circuits Hypothesis
Kang, W., Wang, J., & Malvaso, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.771885 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Value-free random exploration is linked to impulsivity
Dubois, M., & Hauser, T. U. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31918-9 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Rumination network dysfunction in major depression: A brain connectome study
Zhang, R., Kranz, G. S., Zou, W., Deng, Y., Huang, X., Lin, K., & Lee, T. M. C. (2019) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.109819 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationADHD and ASD: distinct brain patterns of inhibition-related activation?
Albajara Sáenz, A., Septier, M., Van Schuerbeek, P., Baijot, S., Deconinck, N., Defresne, P., Delvenne, V., Passeri, G., Raeymaekers, H., Salvesen, L., et al. (2020) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-020-0707-z · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Zhu, Z., Wang, Y., Lau, W. K., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Huang, R., & Zhang, R. (2022) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-022-00628-7 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Self-citationWestwood, S. J., Criaud, M., Lam, S.-L., Lukito, S., Wallace-Hanlon, S., Kowalczyk, O. S., Kostara, A., Mathew, J. P., Agbedjro, D., Wexler, B. E., et al. (2021) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291721001859 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Battaglia, S., Serio, G., Scarpazza, C., D’Ausilio, A., & Borgomaneri, S. (2021) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2021.103963 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
The Influence of Vicarious Fear-Learning in “Infecting” Reactive Action Inhibition
Battaglia, S., Cardellicchio, P., Fazio, C. D., Nazzi, C., Fracasso, A., & Borgomaneri, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2022.946263 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
The ventral attention network: the mirror of the language network in the right brain hemisphere
Bernard, F., D, J.-M. L. M., Mazerand, E., Leiber, L., Meneï, P., & Minassian, A. T. (2020) · Journal of Anatomy · doi:10.1111/joa.13223 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Tomiyama, H., Murayama, K., Nemoto, K., Tomita, M., Hasuzawa, S., Mizobe, T., Kato, K., Ohno, A., Tsuruta, S., Togao, O., et al. (2022) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25699 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Cordova, M., Shada, K., Demeter, D. V., Doyle, O., Miranda-Dominguez, O., Perrone, A., Schifsky, E., Graham, A., Fombonne, E., Langhorst, B., et al. (2020) · NeuroImage: Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102245 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Lotfinia, S., Soorgi, Z., Mertens, Y., & Daniels, J. (2020) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.05.006 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Chan, M. M. Y., & Han, Y. M. Y. (2021) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000777 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
García, J. M. P., Suárez‐Suárez, S., Doallo, S., & Cadaveira, F. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104637 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Borgomaneri, S., Serio, G., & Battaglia, S. (2020) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.09.002 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Delfin, C., Krona, H., Andiné, P., Ryding, E., Wallinius, M., & Hofvander, B. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217127 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Isherwood, S. J., Keuken, M. C., Bazin, P., & Forstmann, B. U. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.07.021 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Qiu, Z., & Wang, J. (2021) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291721000362 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Song, X., Long, J., Wang, C., Zhang, R., & Lee, T. M. C. (2022) · Psychoradiology · doi:10.1093/psyrad/kkac002 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citationComparing directed functional connectivity between groups with confirmatory subgrouping GIMME
Henry, T. R., Feczko, E., Cordova, M., Earl, E., Williams, S., Nigg, J. T., Fair, D. A., & Gates, K. M. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.040 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Claeys, E. H. I., Mantingh, T., Morrens, M., Yalın, N., & Stokes, P. R. A. (2021) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110465 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Soldan, A., Moghekar, A., Walker, K. A., Pettigrew, C. A., Hou, X., Lu, H., Miller, M. I., Alfini, A. J., Albert, M., Xu, D., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00132 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Delalande, L., Moyon, M., Tissier, C., Datin‐Dorrière, V., Guillois, B., Mevell, K., Charron, S., Salvia, É., Poirel, N., Vidal, J., et al. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12898 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Hildebrandt, M. K., Dieterich, R., & Endraß, T. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.06.011 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Long, Y., Pan, N., Ji, S., Qin, K., Chen, Y., Zhang, X., He, M., Suo, X., Yu, Y., Wang, S., et al. (2022) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-022-02130-6 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Towards a model-based cognitive neuroscience of stopping – a neuroimaging perspective
Sebastian, A., Forstmann, B. U., & Matzke, D. (2018) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.011 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Li, Y., Si, L., Shen, B., & Yang, X. (2021) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-021-10868-0 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Su, W.-C., Amonkar, N., Cleffi, C., Srinivasan, S. M., & Bhat, A. N. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.794652 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Effects of Acute Aerobic Exercise on Response Inhibition in Adult Patients with ADHD
Mehren, A., Özyurt, J., Thiel, C. M., Brandes, M., Lam, A. P., & Philipsen, A. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56332-y · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Moses, T. E. H., Gray, E., Mischel, N., & Greenwald, M. K. (2023) · Neurobiology of Stress · doi:10.1016/j.ynstr.2023.100515 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Brain mechanisms underlying the inhibitory control of thought
Anderson, M. C., Crespo‐García, M., & Subbulakshmi, S. (2025) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-025-00929-y · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Nejati, V., Alavi, M. M., & Nitsche, M. A. (2021) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.05.008 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Yu, J., Tao, Q., Zhang, R., Chan, C. C. H., & Lee, T. M. C. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.027 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationNeural Basis of Response Bias on the Stop Signal Task in Misophonia
Eijsker, N., Schröder, A., Smit, D. J. A., van Wingen, G. A., & Denys, D. A. J. P. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00765 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Yang, L., Du, Y., Yang, W., & Liu, J. (2023) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.13267 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Battaglia, S., Nazzi, C., Fazio, C. D., & Borgomaneri, S. (2024) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15145 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Meade, C. S., Bell, R. P., Towe, S. L., & Hall, S. A. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107757 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Neural correlates of inhibitory control in youth with symptoms of food addiction
Hardee, J. E., Phaneuf-Hadd, C. V., Cope, L. M., Zucker, R. A., Gearhardt, A. N., & Heitzeg, M. M. (2020) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104578 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Rai, S., Foster, S., Griffiths, K. R., Breukelaar, I. A., Kozlowska, K., & Korgaonkar, M. S. (2022) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103110 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Control of response interference: caudate nucleus contributes to selective inhibition
Schmidt, C. C., Timpert, D. C., Arend, I. C., Vossel, S., Fink, G. R., Henik, A., & Weiss, P. H. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77744-1 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Salem, V., Demetriou, L., Behary, P., Αλεξιάδου, Κ., Scholtz, S., Tharakan, G., Miras, A. D., Purkayastha, S., Ahmed, A. R., Bloom, S. R., et al. (2021) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc20-2641 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
van Velzen, L. S., Toenders, Y. J., Àvila-Parcet, A., Dinga, R., Rabinowitz, J. A., Campos, A. I., Jahanshad, N., Rentería, M. E., & Schmaal, L. (2022) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.2022.7 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Ojha, A., Parr, A. C., Foran, W., Calabro, F. J., & Luna, B. (2022) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101183 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Ding, J., Wang, Y.-M., Wang, C., Uquillas, F. D., He, Q., Li, C., & Zou, Z. (2020) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00119 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Tan, J., Iyer, K. K., Tang, A. D., Jamil, A., Martins, R. N., Sohrabi, H. R., Nitsche, M. A., Hinder, M. R., & Fujiyama, H. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.044 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Bessette, K. L., Karstens, A. J., Crane, N. A., Peters, A. T., Stange, J. P., Elverman, K. H., Morimoto, S. S., Weisenbach, S. L., & Langenecker, S. A. (2020) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-019-09424-5 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Mapping common grey matter volume deviation across child and adolescent psychiatric disorders
Li, T., Wang, L., Camilleri, J. A., Chen, X., Li, S., Stewart, J. L., Jiang, Y., Eickhoff, S. B., & Feng, C. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.05.015 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Yang, Y., Morys, F., Wu, Q., Ji-wen, L., & Chen, H. (2021) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsab137 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Hong, X., Sun, J., Wang, J., Li, C., & Tong, S. (2019) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.11.011 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Functional Connectivity Predicts Individual Development of Inhibitory Control during Adolescence
Wang, H., Fan, L., Song, M., Liu, B., Wu, D., Jiang, R., Li, J., Li, A., Banaschewski, T., Bokde, A. L. W., et al. (2020) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhaa383 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Brain regions that support accurate speech production after damage to Broca’s area
Lorca‐Puls, D. L., Gajardo‐Vidal, A., PLORAS team, Oberhuber, M., Prejawa, S., Hope, T. M. H., Leff, A. P., Green, D. W., & Price, C. J. (2021) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcab230 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Feng, C., Gu, R., Li, T., Wang, L., Zhang, Z., Luo, W., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.041 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Vitale, F., Monti, I., Padrón, I., Avenanti, A., & de Vega, M. (2021) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2021.11.015 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Suñol, M., Martínez‐Zalacaín, I., Picó‐Pérez, M., López‐Solà, C., Real, E., Fullana, M. A., Pujol, J., Cardoner, N., Menchón, J. M., Alonso, P., et al. (2019) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719000515 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Latent ERP components of cognitive dysfunctions in ADHD and schizophrenia
Kropotov, J. D., Пронина, М. В., Ponomarev, V. A., Poliakov, Y. I., Plotnikova, I. V., & Mueller, A. (2019) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2019.01.015 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Response Inhibition and Binge Drinking During Transition to University: An fMRI Study
Suárez‐Suárez, S., Doallo, S., García, J. M. P., Corral, M., Holguı́n, S. R., & Cadaveira, F. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00535 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Adolescent sex differences in cortico-subcortical functional connectivity during response inhibition
Chung, Y. S., Calhoun, V. D., & Stevens, M. C. G. (2019) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-019-00718-y · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Li, M., Lindenmuth, M., Tarnai, K., Lee, J., King‐Casas, B., Kim‐Spoon, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. D. (2022) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101139 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
The effect of task complexity on the neural network for response inhibition: An ALE meta-analysis
Aziz-Safaie, T., Müller, V. I., Langner, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Cieslik, E. C. (2024) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105544 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Criaud, M., Anton, J., Nazarian, B., Longcamp, M., Météreau, É., Boulinguez, P., & Ballanger, B. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11050560 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Response inhibition is disrupted by interoceptive processing at cardiac systole
Ren, Q., Marshall, A. C., Kaiser, J., & Schütz-Bosbach, S. (2022) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108323 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Paitel, E. R., & Nielson, K. A. (2021) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym13122323 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Altered functional connectivity in children with ADHD while performing cognitive control task
Kumar, U., Arya, A., & Agarwal, V. (2022) · Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2022.111531 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Aben, B., Calderon, C. B., Cruyssen, L. V. D., Picksak, D., den Bussche, E. V., & Verguts, T. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.004 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Park, J., Kim, T., Kim, M., Lee, T. Y., & Kwon, J. S. (2020) · Psychiatry Investigation · doi:10.30773/pi.2019.0206 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationFeng, Y., Li, Y., Tan, X. L., Liang, Y., Ma, X., Chen, Y., Lv, W., Wu, J., Kang, S., Li, M., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.697349 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Transcriptome Profiling of the Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex in Suicide Victims
Dóra, F., Renner, É., Keller, D. W., Palkovits, M., & Dobolyi, Á. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms23137067 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Zhuang, Q., Qiao, L., Xu, L., Yao, S., Chen, S., Zheng, X., Li, J., Fu, M., Li, K., Vatansever, D., et al. (2023) · Psychoradiology · doi:10.1093/psyrad/kkad016 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Lesage, E., Sutherland, M. T., Ross, T. J., Salmeron, B. J., & Stein, E. A. (2020) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-020-0623-1 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Insular cortex: A hub for saliency, cognitive control, and interoceptive awareness
Menon, V. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820480-1.00093-0 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Hartogsveld, B., Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., van Ruitenbeek, P., & Smeets, T. (2021) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105596 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Sacheli, L. M., Tomasetig, G., Musco, M. A., Pizzi, S., Bottini, G., Pizzamiglio, L., & Paulesu, E. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104768 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Zhu, Z., Wang, S., Lee, T. M. C., & Zhang, R. (2023) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2023.04.082 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Zhang, R., Geng, X., & Lee, T. M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Tatia M. C.
- Venue
- Brain Structure and Function
- Published
- 2017-05-27
- Volume
- 222
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 3973-3990
- ISSN
- 1863-2653 (ISSN-L)
- 1863-2661
- PMC
- PMC5686258
- OpenAlex
- W2620553762
- Semantic Scholar
- 6eb34688ed62fa1af95e749f7530515e077dab88
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 89
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 12.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Brain Structure and Function (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- This project is supported by The University of Hong Kong May Endowed Professorship in Neuropsychology. (NA)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Keywords
- response inhibition, inhibitory control, interference resolution, action cancellation, right inferior frontal cortex, ventral attention network, frontoparietal network, frontostriatal circuits, right hemisphere activation, insula, paracingulate gyrus, superior parietal gyrus
- MeSH terms
- Brain Mapping, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Inhibition, Psychological, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neural Pathways, Oxygen
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
