Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“Interference resolution was found to draw on the ventral attention network, while fronto-parietal network was implicated in action withholding/cancellation.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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”

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leech et al. 2011 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Rubia et al. 2001 source
• Not checked yetcites Sebastian et al. 2013b
• Not checked yetcites Chevrier et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Schachar et al. 2007 source
• Not checked yetcites Vercammen et al. 2012 source
• Not checked yetcites Palazidou 2012 source

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Nigg 2000 source
• Not checked yetcites Nee et al. 2007 source
• Not checked yetcites van Velzen et al. 2014 source

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sebastian et al. 2013b

In the paper

“The same statistical analyses and thresholding approaches were applied for all meta-analyses in this study.”

In the paper

“We classified stop signal tasks as those that trigger action cancellation (Aron et al. 2004; Schachar et al. 2007).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Aron et al. 2004 source
• Not checked yetcites Schachar et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sebastian et al. 2013b

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leech et al. 2011 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Nachev et al. 2008 source
• Not checked yetcites Iannaccone et al. 2015 source
• Not checked yetcites Mevorach et al. 2009 source

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sebastian et al. 2013a
• Not checked yetcites Dambacher et al. 2014 source
• Not checked yetcites Cieslik et al. 2015 source

In the paper

“Action withholding encompasses future action selection and inhibition, whereas action cancellation goes beyond this to demand inhibition of an ongoing response.”

In the paper

“In contrast, the right insula is required to overcome preponderant tendencies, notice the salient stimuli, and coordinate various control mechanisms.”

In the paper

“Nee et al. (2013) reported that there was widespread bilateral fronto-parietal network activation during various types of working memory tasks.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Nee et al. (2013) source

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sharp et al. 2010 source
• Not checked yetcites Dodds et al. 2010 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Badzakova-Trajkov et al. 2009 source

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Aron et al. 2003 source

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Hobeika et al. (2016) source

In the paper

“This process may require enhanced consideration of the objective and engagement of resources for conflict management.”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Friedman and Miyake 2004 source

In the paper

“This observation is in line with the finding of previous meta-analytic studies on the topic (e.g., Cieslik et al. 2015).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Cieslik et al. 2015 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Nee et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Cai et al. 2014 source

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Wager et al. 2005 source

In the paper

“Three stages of general information processing exist: stimulus identification, response selection, and response execution, or the motor stage.”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Nee et al. (2007) source

In the paper

“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”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Simmonds et al. 2008 source
• Not checked yetcites Criaud and Boulinguez 2013 source
• Not checked yetcites Nee et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sebastian et al. 2013a, b

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Duncan 2010 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Apicella et al. 1992 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Eickhoff et al. 2016b

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“Both action withholding and cancellation are impaired in ADHD individuals.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Schachar et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Mittner et al. 2014 source
• Not checked yetcites Lynn et al. 2014 source
• Not checked yetcites Ganos et al. 2014 source