Cited by 311Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an FMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments on the Simon task

Kerns, John G.·2006·NeuroImage

Abstract

People alter their task performance on a trial-to-trial basis, for example after an incongruent trial on tasks involving response conflict. Previous research has found that these adjustments are most robust in the Simon task. One explanation for behavioral adjustments is the conflict-monitoring hypothesis, which posits that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) responds to conflict and that this serves as a signal to recruit other brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC) to minimize conflict and improve performance. However, another independently supported explanation for behavioral adjustments on the Simon task is the feature integration view, which can account for behavioral adjustments as the result of stimulus repetitions and alternations. Hence, by itself, evidence for behavioral adjustments on the Simon task does not clearly provide evidence for the conflict-monitoring hypothesis. However, the conflict-monitoring hypothesis does predict that behavioral adjustments on the Simon task should involve ACC conflict activity and PFC post-conflict activity. In the current study, consistent with the conflict-monitoring hypothesis, behavioral adjustments in performance on the Simon task were predicted by ACC conflict-related activity. In addition, subsequent behavioral adjustments were associated with PFC activity, with previous trial ACC conflict-related activity predicting greater PFC activity on subsequent trials. These results provide additional evidence that behavioral adjustments on the Simon task are due in part to ACC conflict monitoring and the subsequent recruitment of PFC to minimize conflict.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.012

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kerns, J. G.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Kerns, John G.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
399-405
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981331769
Cited by
311
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 21
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Missouri
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
Simon task, conflict monitoring, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex, response conflict, feature integration, stimulus repetition
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Color Perception, Conflict, Psychological, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Visual Perception, Prefrontal Cortex

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