Cited by 22Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Successful inhibitory control over an immediate reward is associated with attentional disengagement in visual processing areas

O'Connor, David A., Rossiter, Sarah, Yücel, Murat, Lubman, Dan I., Hester, Robert·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

We examined the neural basis of the capacity to resist an immediately rewarding stimulus in order to obtain a larger delayed reward. This was investigated with a Go/No-go task employing No-go targets that provided two types of reward outcomes. These were contingent on inhibitory control performance: failure to inhibit Reward No-go targets provided a small monetary reward with immediate feedback; while successful inhibitory control resulted in larger rewards with delayed feedback based on the highest number of consecutive inhibitions. We observed faster Go trial responses with maintained levels of inhibition accuracy during the Reward No-go condition compared to a neutral No-go condition. Comparisons between conditions of BOLD activity showed successful inhibitory control over rewarding No-Go targets was associated with hypoactivity in regions previously associated with regulating emotion and inhibitory control, including insula and right inferior frontal gyrus. In addition, regions previously associated with visual processing centers that are modulated as a function of visual attention, namely the left fusiform and right superior temporal gyri, were hypoactive. These findings suggest a role for attentional disengagement as an aid to withholding response over a rewarding stimulus and are consistent with the notion that gratification can be delayed by directing attention away from immediate rewards.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.040

Cites

69 of 69 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
O'Connor, D. A., Rossiter, S., Yücel, M., Lubman, D. I., & Hester, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Eastern Health (AU)
Corresponding author
Hester, Robert
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
1841-1847
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159099615
Cited by
22
References
68
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (DP1092852)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (628495)
  • Fellowship (519730, 509345)
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
inhibitory control, attentional disengagement, delayed rewards, immediate rewards, insula, inferior frontal gyrus, fusiform gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, visual attention, emotion regulation, BOLD activation
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Impulsive Behavior, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Reward, Young Adult

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