Three key regions for supervisory attentional control: Evidence from neuroimaging meta-analyses
Open accessAbstract
The supervisory attentional system has been proposed to mediate non-routine, goal-oriented behaviour by guiding the selection and maintenance of the goal-relevant task schema. Here, we aimed to delineate the brain regions that mediate these high-level control processes via neuroimaging meta-analysis. In particular, we investigated the core neural correlates of a wide range of tasks requiring supervisory control for the suppression of a routine action in favour of another, non-routine one. Our sample comprised n=173 experiments employing go/no-go, stop-signal, Stroop or spatial interference tasks. Consistent convergence across all four paradigm classes was restricted to right anterior insula and inferior frontal junction, with anterior midcingulate cortex and pre-supplementary motor area being consistently involved in all but the go/no-go task. Taken together with lesion studies in patients, our findings suggest that the controlled activation and maintenance of adequate task schemata relies, across paradigms, on a right-dominant midcingulo-insular-inferior frontal core network. This also implies that the role of other prefrontal and parietal regions may be less domain-general than previously thought.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The 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).”
From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Cieslik et al. 2015
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).”
From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Cieslik et al. 2015
The 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).”
From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Cieslik et al. 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 296 · Cited by 322
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Vogt BA Hof PR Vogt LJ Paxinos G Mai JK Cingulate Gyrus The Human Nervous System 2004 Amsterdam Elsevier 915 949
- Authors
- Cieslik, E. C., Mueller, V. I., Eickhoff, C. R., Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S. B.
- Affiliations
- Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Cieslik, Edna C.
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 48
- Pages
- 22-34
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4272620
- OpenAlex
- W2070812752
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 296
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 11 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, EI 816/4-1, LA 3071/3-1)
- National Institute of Mental Health (EI 816/6-, R01-MH074457)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- task switching, go/no-go task, stop-signal task, Stroop task, right anterior insula, inferior frontal junction, anterior midcingulate cortex, pre-supplementary motor area
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Humans
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.
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
