CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,015Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent

Open access
Simmonds, Daniel J., Pekar, James J., Mostofsky, Stewart H.·2008·Neuropsychologia
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015PMC PMC2327217
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

FMRI studies of response inhibition consistently reveal frontal lobe activation. Localization within the frontal cortex, however, varies across studies and appears dependent on the nature of the task. Activation likelihood estimate (ALE) meta-analysis is a powerful quantitative method of establishing concurrence of activation across functional neuroimaging studies. For this study, ALE was used to investigate concurrent neural correlates of successfully inhibited No-go stimuli across studies of healthy adults performing a Go/No-go task, a paradigm frequently used to measure response inhibition. Due to the potential overlap of neural circuits for response selection and response inhibition, the analysis included only event-related studies contrasting No-go activation with baseline, which allowed for inclusion of all regions that may be critical to visually guided motor response inhibition, including those involved in response selection. These Go/No-go studies were then divided into two groups: "simple" Go/No-go tasks in which the No-go stimulus was always the same, and "complex" Go/No-go tasks, in which the No-go stimulus changed depending on context, requiring frequent updating of stimulus-response associations in working memory. The simple and complex tasks demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with right dorsolateral prefrontal and inferior parietal circuits recruited under conditions of increased working memory demand. Common to both simple and complex Go/No-go tasks was concurrence in the pre-SMA and the left fusiform gyrus. As the pre-SMA has also been shown to be involved in response selection, the results support the notion that the pre-SMA is critical for selection of appropriate behavior, whether selecting to execute an appropriate response or selecting to inhibit an inappropriate response.

Verified 2026-10-06 · 17 references not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This ALE meta-analysis of event-related Go/No-go fMRI studies in healthy adults found that response-inhibition activation is task-dependent: simple and complex tasks show distinct concurrence patterns, with right frontoparietal circuits recruited only under increased working-memory demand. The pre-SMA and left fusiform gyrus were common to both task types, supporting a role for the pre-SMA in response selection/inhibition irrespective of task demands.

Key findings

  • Across all 11 datasets, successful No-go inhibition showed a mainly right-lateralized network including pre-SMA (BA6/32), right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA9/44), bilateral inferior parietal lobule (BA40), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37), bilateral putamen, and bilateral insula.
  • Simple Go/No-go tasks (5 datasets) showed concurrence only in right pre-SMA (BA6/32), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37), and precuneus (BA7).
  • Complex Go/No-go tasks (6 datasets) showed concurrence in pre-SMA (BA6/32), right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA9/44), bilateral inferior parietal lobule (BA40), bilateral putamen, bilateral insula, right middle temporal gyrus (BA22), left fusiform gyrus (BA19/37), and left middle frontal gyrus (BA46).
  • Overlap between simple and complex analyses was limited to pre-SMA (176 mm³) and left fusiform gyrus (16 mm³); no analysis showed concurrence in right inferior frontal gyrus BA47.

Methods

  • PubMed searches for “Go/No-go AND fMRI” and “response inhibition AND fMRI” identified studies of healthy adults performing Go/No-go fMRI, analyzing correctly rejected No-go trials against baseline, and reporting stereotactic coordinates; 10 studies remained, yielding 11 datasets (5 simple, 6 complex).
  • Three separate activation likelihood estimate (ALE) meta-analyses were run: all datasets, simple tasks, and complex tasks. MNI coordinates were converted to Talairach; foci were modeled as 3D Gaussian functions with 15 mm FWHM, 5,000 permutations were used, and maps were thresholded at p = 10⁻³.
  • Simple tasks were defined as those with a constant No-go stimulus-response association; complex tasks required updating stimulus-response associations based on working memory.

Limitations

  • The paper states that ALE considers only peak voxel locations, ignores cluster magnitude and extent, does not weight studies by statistical power or sample size, and combines studies using different statistical methods and thresholds.
  • The paper notes that fixed-effects studies may not generalize to the population but excluding them could reduce power.
  • Evident from the text: the meta-analysis includes only 5 simple and 6 complex datasets, and no direct statistical comparison between simple and complex concurrence maps is reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015

Cites

51 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 82 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § 3. Results

    The ALE analysis of complex studies demonstrated concurrence in the pre-SMA (BA6/32), right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA9/44), bilateral inferior parietal regions (BA40), bilateral putamen, bilateral insula, right middle temporal gyrus (BA22), left fusiform gyrus (BA19/37) and the left middle frontal gyrus (BA46).

    “The analysis of the complex studies demonstrated concurrence in the pre-SMA (BA6/32), right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA9/44), bilateral inferior parietal regions (BA40), bilateral putamen, bilateral insula, right middle temporal gyrus (BA22), left fusiform gyrus (BA19/37) and the left middle frontal gyrus (BA46).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of Go/No-go tasks into simple and complex captures the relevant difference in working memory demand that determines the neural correlates of response inhibition.
    • Rests on an assumption: The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.
  • Findingown data
    § 3. Results

    The ALE analysis of simple studies demonstrated concurrence in the right pre-SMA (BA6/32), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37) and the precuneus (BA7).

    “The analysis of the simple studies demonstrated concurrence in the right pre-SMA (BA6/32), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37) and the precuneus (BA7).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of Go/No-go tasks into simple and complex captures the relevant difference in working memory demand that determines the neural correlates of response inhibition.
    • Rests on an assumption: The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Common to both simple and complex Go/No-go tasks was concurrence in the pre-SMA and the left fusiform gyrus.

    “Common to both simple and complex Go/No-go tasks was concurrence in the pre-SMA and the left fusiform gyrus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of Go/No-go tasks into simple and complex captures the relevant difference in working memory demand that determines the neural correlates of response inhibition.
    • Rests on an assumption: The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.
  • Findingown data
    § 4. Discussion

    There was a notable lack of concurrence in any of the three analyses in the frontal operculum portion of the right inferior frontal gyrus (BA47).

    “There was a notable lack of concurrence in any of the three analyses in the frontal operculum portion of the right inferior frontal gyrus (BA47)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 4. Discussion

    Within complex tasks only, concurrence of activation was seen in a right-lateralized set of regions including the middle/inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule (BA40), near the temporo-parietal junction.

    “Within the complex tasks only, and consistent with findings from Buchsbaum et al., concurrence of activation was seen in a right-lateralized set of regions including the middle/inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule (BA40), near the temporo-parietal junction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 30
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results

    The simple and complex ALE analyses demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with overlap only in the pre-SMA (BA6/32) with a 176 mm3 extent and in the left fusiform gyrus (BA37) with a 16 mm3 extent.

    “Although the ALE analyses of the simple and complex studies demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, overlap between the two analyses was seen only in the pre-SMA (BA6/32) with a 176mm3 extent, indicated by the arrows in Figure 2, and in the left fusiform gyrus (BA37) with a 16mm3 extent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of Go/No-go tasks into simple and complex captures the relevant difference in working memory demand that determines the neural correlates of response inhibition.
    • Rests on an assumption: The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results

    The ALE analysis of all 11 studies demonstrated a primarily right-lateralized network associated with successfully inhibited No-go stimuli, with concurrence in the rostral superior medial wall (pre-SMA; BA6/32), right prefrontal regions (BA9/10/44), left premotor cortex (BA6), bilateral inferior parietal regions (BA40), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37), bilateral putamen and bilateral insula.

    “The analysis demonstrated a primarily right-lateralized network associated with successfully inhibited No-go stimuli, with concurrence seen in the rostral portion of the superior medial wall (pre-SMA; BA6/32), right prefrontal regions (BA9/10/44), left premotor cortex (BA6), bilateral inferior parietal regions (BA40), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37), bilateral putamen and bilateral insula.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    The simple and complex tasks demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with right dorsolateral prefrontal and inferior parietal circuits recruited under conditions of increased working memory demand.

    “The simple and complex tasks demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with right dorsolateral prefrontal and inferior parietal circuits recruited under conditions of increased working memory demand.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The classification of Go/No-go tasks into simple and complex captures the relevant difference in working memory demand that determines the neural correlates of response inhibition.
    • Rests on an assumption: The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4. Discussion

    The region revealed by the meta-analysis bordered on the cingulate sulcus but was almost entirely contained above it, and hence appeared principally localized to the pre-SMA.

    “The region revealed by the meta-analysis bordered on the cingulate sulcus, but was almost entirely contained above the cingulate sulcus (see Figure 2), and hence appeared to be principally localized to the pre-SMA”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Conclusions

    The simple and complex tasks demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with right-lateralized prefrontal-parietal circuits observed only for the complex tasks.

    “The simple and complex tasks demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with right-lateralized prefrontal-parietal circuits observed only for the complex tasks”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Activation likelihood estimate (ALE) meta-analysis allows for statistically verifiable concurrence across functional neuroimaging studies.

    “One method of meta-analysis called activation likelihood estimate (ALE) (Turkeltaub et al., 2002), allows for statistically verifiable concurrence across functional neuroimaging studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Turkeltaub et al., 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning
    § 1. Introduction

    The traditional simple Go/No-go task allows examination of response inhibition under conditions in which other cognitive/behavioral processes are minimized.

    “The Go/No-go task is frequently used during fMRI and the traditional, simple format of this task allows for examination of response inhibition under conditions in which other cognitive/behavioral processes are minimized.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1. Introduction

    The No-go versus Go contrast may be masking activation critical to the inhibitory process but also involved in motor response selection.

    “Thus, the “No-go versus Go” contrast may be masking activation that is critical to the inhibitory process but is also involved in motor response selection.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    The commonality between motor response selection and response inhibition is reflected in executive deficits associated with ADHD, where impairments in both motor response inhibition and motor response selection/execution are observed.

    “The commonality between motor response selection and response inhibition is further reflected in the executive deficits associated with ADHD, where impairments in both motor response inhibition (Aron & Poldrack, 2005; Barkley, 1997; Nigg, 1999) and motor response selection/execution (Banaschewski et al., 2004; Ben-Pazi et al., 2003; Rubia et al., 2003) are observed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Aron & Poldrack, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Barkley, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Nigg, 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Human lesion studies have demonstrated involvement of the frontal cortex in response inhibition, with more specific localization in the superior medial (BA6/8) and right inferior prefrontal cortices.

    “Human lesion studies have demonstrated the involvement of the frontal cortex (Drewe et al., 1975; Godefroy & Rousseaux, 1996), with more specific localization in the superior medial (BA6/8) (Drewe et al., 1975; Floden & Stuss, 2006; Picton et al., 2006) and right inferior prefrontal cortices (Aron et al., 2003; Chambers et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Drewe et al., 1975

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Godefroy & Rousseaux, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Aron et al., 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Reanalysis of the monkey response switching data showed No-go and Dual type neurons fired earlier than Go type neurons, suggesting that selection of a response involves first inhibiting other responses and then selecting the new response, and that response inhibition and selection may be distinguished in the temporal domain rather than the spatial domain.

    “The data from the response switching experiment was then reanalyzed, and it was shown the No-go and Dual type neurons fired earlier than Go type neurons, suggesting that 1) selection of a response involves first inhibiting other responses and then selecting the new response and that 2) the processes of response inhibition and selection may be distinguished in the temporal domain, rather than the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    A previous review of response inhibition tasks suggested a preponderance of activation in the right inferior frontal cortex, but no statistical methods were used to confirm this observation.

    “A previous review of response inhibition tasks mapped coordinates reported in several studies (Aron & Poldrack, 2005), including both blocked and event-related Go/No-go tasks as well as Stop-Signal tasks, and suggested a preponderance of activation in the right inferior frontal cortex; however, no statistical methods were used to confirm this observation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aron & Poldrack, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 1. Introduction

    Processes central to response selection are likely common to all Go/No-go tasks as a final common pathway involved in selecting to withhold a response.

    “While regions recruited to guide response inhibition may vary depending on task design, processes central to response selection are likely common to all Go/No-go tasks as a final common pathway involved in selecting to withhold a response.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    An fMRI conjunction analysis of motor response selection and inhibition tasks identified a frontal network activated in response to all low-frequency stimuli across tasks, irrespective of whether they involved execution or inhibition of a motor response.

    “An fMRI conjunction analysis of motor response selection and inhibition tasks identified a frontal network activated in response to all low-frequency stimuli across the tasks, irrespective of whether they involved a execution or inhibition of a motor response (Braver et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Braver et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    In humans, electrophysiological activity has been seen in the pre-SMA during a response inhibition task and direct stimulation of the pre-SMA region inhibited ongoing, habitual motor actions.

    “In humans, electrophysiological activity has been seen in the pre-SMA during a response inhibition task (Ikeda et al., 1999) and direct stimulation of the pre-SMA region inhibited ongoing, habitual motor actions (Ikeda et al., 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ikeda et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ikeda et al., 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 1. Introduction

    The No-go versus Go contrast is useful in revealing activation exclusive to the inhibitory process but assumes that response selection (Go) and response inhibition (No-go) are independent.

    “The “No-go versus Go” contrast is useful in revealing activation that is exclusive to the inhibitory process but makes the assumption that the processes of response selection (Go) and response inhibition (No-go) are independent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Block design contrast of blocks containing both Go and No-go stimuli versus Go-only blocks shows activation related to the inhibitory process but is confounded by task difficulty, attention, different stimuli, and maintenance of stimulus-response associations, and is not ideal for isolating regions involved in the inhibitory process.

    “Early fMRI studies of GNG tasks used a block design approach (Rubia et al., 2001; Menon et al., 2001), in which blocks containing both Go and No-go stimuli are contrasted with Go-only blocks. This contrast shows activation related to the inhibitory process; problematically, it is also confounded by issues such as task difficulty, attention, different stimuli and maintenance of stimulus-response”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rubia et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Menon et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    In rhesus monkeys, pre-SMA neurons were found active during response switching, and during a Go/No-go task some pre-SMA neurons responded to Go stimuli, some to No-go stimuli, and some to both.

    “This is particularly highlighted in a recent study of rhesus monkeys (Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007) in which neurons in the rostral portion of the superior medial wall (“pre-SMA”; BA6) were found to be active during the response “switching”, which involved the selection of a new, controlled response and suppression of a habitual response. When activity from these same neurons was recorded during a Go/No”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 1. Introduction

    Both Go and No-go events involve response selection, including selecting to inhibit movement in the case of No-go.

    “Given that both Go and No-go events involve response selection, including selecting to inhibit movement in the case of No-go, it would be best to not treat them as opposite contrasts in an fMRI design; doing so may lead to the erroneous conclusion that certain brain regions are not critical to response inhibition because they are involved in response selection as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Buchsbaum et al. selected studies employing a range of analytic approaches, including block designs and a variety of event-related approaches, which may have impacted their meta-analysis findings.

    “Additionally, Buchsbaum et al. selected studies employing a range of analytic approaches, including those from block designs and a variety of event-related approaches; this may have impacted their meta-analysis findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Localization of frontal activation associated with response inhibition varies across studies and appears dependent on the nature of the task.

    “Localization within the frontal cortex, however, varies across studies and appears dependent on the nature of the task.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
      “Localization within the frontal cortex, however, varies across studies; this variation appears to be task dependent (Mostofsky et al., 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mostofsky et al., 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Single-cell recordings in monkeys have demonstrated involvement of a region analogous to the pre-SMA in response inhibition.

    “Single-cell recordings in monkeys have demonstrated the involvement of a region analogous to the pre-SMA in response inhibition (Matsuzaka et al., 1992).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Matsuzaka et al., 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Response inhibition is an active process in which an individual actively selects not to respond, and its neural bases may overlap with motor response selection.

    “This may not be the case; similar to motor response selection, response inhibition is an active process, in which an individual actively selects not to respond, and hence their neural bases may overlap (for review, see Mostofsky & Simmonds, in press).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mostofsky & Simmonds, in press

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    A recent ALE meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks reported a mainly right-lateralized network associated with response inhibition, including right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA46/44), right inferior parietal regions (BA40), and superior medial frontal gyrus (BA6), but represented a wide range of tasks with different cognitive and working memory demands.

    “Recently, an ALE meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks was performed (Buchsbaum et al., 2005), reporting a mainly right-lateralized network associated with response inhibition, including the right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA46/44), right inferior parietal regions (BA40), and the superior medial frontal gyrus (BA6); however, a wide range of Go/No-go tasks with different cognitive and working memory”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1. Introduction

    Findings from fMRI studies of the Go/No-go task differ in localization of inhibitory-associated activation within the frontal cortex, and the most likely explanation is differences in task design.

    “Yet, findings from fMRI studies of the Go/No-go task also differ in localization of inhibitory-associated activation within the frontal cortex. The most likely explanation for this is differences in task-design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Several tasks used to study inhibition during fMRI, such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task and the Stroop task, involve additional cognitive processes including stimulus-response conflict, learning, working memory and shifting attention, and the degree to which these processes are engaged may affect localization of inhibitory activity.

    “Several tasks used to study inhibition during fMRI such as the Wisconsin Cart Sorting Task and the Stroop task involve additional cognitive processes necessary to guide response inhibition, including stimulus-response conflict, learning, working memory and shifting attention (Buchsbaum et al., 2005); as all of these processes have been shown to involve various regions of the prefrontal cortex, the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    In humans, the pre-SMA is important in motor response preparation and selection.

    “In humans, electrophysiological (Ball et al., 1999) and imaging (Ball et al., 1999; Barber and Carter, 2005) studies show the importance of the pre-SMA in motor response preparation and selection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ball et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Barber and Carter, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The RIFC has been emphasized by some studies to be critical to response inhibition.

    “which has been emphasized by some studies to be critical to response inhibition”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aron & Poldrack, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Additional support for the importance of the pre-SMA to response inhibition comes from fMRI activation seen in the pre-SMA during anti-saccade and anti-pointing tasks, both involving inhibition of a prepotent response, and a study combining EEG and fMRI in which a decrease in activation in the pre-SMA was observed prior to primary motor cortex activation and motor execution.

    “Additional support for the importance of the pre-SMA to response inhibition comes from fMRI activation seen in the pre-SMA during anti-saccade and anti-pointing tasks (Connolly et al., 2000), both involving inhibition of a prepotent response, and a study combining EEG and fMRI in which a decrease in activation in the pre-SMA was observed prior to primary motor cortex activation and motor execution”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Connolly et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ball et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Activation likelihood in the left fusiform gyrus may reflect stimulus classification, with modulatory feedback from higher order regions about the behavioral salience of No-go stimuli necessary to correctly recognize cues and inhibit the prepotent response.

    “Thus, activation likelihood in this area may reflect either stimulus classification, with modulatory feedback from higher order regions (Rockland & Pandya, 1979) about the behavioral salience of No-go stimuli necessary to correctly recognize the cues and inhibit the prepotent response.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rockland & Pandya, 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Examination of cortical thickness in ADHD revealed significant thinning principally localized to the pre-SMA.

    “examination of cortical thickness in ADHD revealed significant thinning principally localized to the pre-SMA”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shaw et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The left fusiform gyrus is a visual association region with reciprocal connections with both posterior parietal and prefrontal areas.

    “a visual association region that has reciprocal connections with both posterior parietal and prefrontal areas”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Leichnitz, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pandya & Seltzer, 1982

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    There is a dorsal/ventral dissociation within the prefrontal cortex, whereby ventral prefrontal regions (lateral IFC) are involved in maintenance of information, whereas dorsal prefrontal regions (DLPFC) are involved in manipulation of information in working memory.

    “There is strong evidence for a dorsal/ventral dissociation within the prefrontal cortex, whereby ventral prefrontal regions (lateral IFC) are involved in maintenance of information, whereas dorsal prefrontal regions (DLPFC) are involved in manipulation of information in working memory”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Courtney, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites D'Esposito et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    These circuits appear to be critical for executive control needed to guide goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention.

    “These circuits appear to be critical for executive control needed to guide goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    In ADHD, impairments are observed in both response inhibition and motor response preparation/selection.

    “where impairments in both response inhibition (Aron & Poldrack, 2005; Barkley, 1997; Nigg, 1999) and motor response preparation/selection (Banaschewski et al., 2004; Ben-Pazi et al., 2003; Rubia et al., 2003; Mostofsky, 2003) are observed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Aron & Poldrack, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Banaschewski et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mostofsky, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The DLPFC is important for representing task set and instructions, both of which are critical to complex Go/No-go tasks.

    “It has also been shown that the DLPFC is important for representing task set and instructions, both of which are critical to complex Go/No-go tasks”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Courtney, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Liddle et al. (2001) examined both the "No-go versus Go" and "No-go versus baseline" contrasts within the same study and found RIFC activation only for the "No-go versus Go" contrast.

    “These confounds were addressed by one study (Liddle et al., 2001) which examined both the “No-go versus Go” and “No-go versus baseline” contrasts within the same study and found RIFC activation only for the “No-go versus Go” contrast.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liddle et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The presence of both Go-type and No-go-type neurons in the pre-SMA indicates that the pre-SMA plays an important role in switching from an automatic, habitual response to a controlled response by suppressing the habitual response and boosting selection of the controlled response.

    “The presence of both of these types of neurons within the pre-SMA indicate that the pre-SMA plays an important role in switching from an automatic, habitual response to a controlled response by suppressing (i.e., inhibiting) the habitual response and boosting selection of the controlled response”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The inferior parietal cortex has extensive reciprocal connections with the prefrontal cortex.

    “The inferior parietal cortex has extensive reciprocal connections with the prefrontal cortex”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Petrides and Pandya, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rushworth et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Right DLPFC plays an important role in manipulation of information, such as stimulus-response associations, in working memory.

    “the right DLPFC, which has been noted to play an important role in manipulation of information, such as stimulus-response associations, in working memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Courtney, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites D'Esposito et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The processes of response selection and inhibition are linked.

    “There is also much behavioral evidence indicating that the processes of response selection and inhibition are linked”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mostofsky & Simmonds, in press

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    The role of posterior cortical regions within this circuit is maintaining representations of stimulus-response associations by integrating cues and motor actions into stimulus-response associations.

    “It has been suggested that the role of posterior cortical regions within this circuit is maintaining representations of stimulus-response associations by integrating cues and motor actions into stimulus-response associations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Garavan et al., 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Liu et al., 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rubia et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    Recruitment of the RIFC is not a universal finding; many fMRI and lesion studies of response inhibition fail to report involvement of this region.

    “Recruitment of the RIFC is not a universal finding, with many fMRI and lesion studies of response inhibition failing to report involvement of this region”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Drewe et al., 1975

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Garavan et al., 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wager et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion

    In Go/No-go tasks, commission errors correlate with response time variability.

    “in Go/No-go tasks, it has been shown that commission errors, which are an indicator of inhibitory performance, correlate with response time variability”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bellgrove et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Simmonds et al., in press

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Discussion

    There are several notable issues with the ALE method that may reduce the accuracy of the results.

    “there are several notable issues with the ALE method that may reduce the accuracy of the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In ALE analyses, the only information taken into account is the location of the voxel of peak activation for each reported cluster, and this voxel is treated as the center of a three-dimensional Gaussian function.
    • Rests on an assumption: ALE analyses do not consider the magnitude or extent of activation for each cluster.
    • Rests on an assumption: ALE does not weight studies based on their statistical power.
45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The classification of Go/No-go tasks into simple and complex captures the relevant difference in working memory demand that determines the neural correlates of response inhibition.

    “These Go/No-go studies were then divided into two groups: “simple” Go/No-go tasks in which the No-go stimulus was always the same, and “complex” Go/No-go tasks, in which the No-go stimulus changed depending on context, requiring frequent updating of stimulus-response associations in working memory.”
    “These studies were then divided into “simple” tasks in which the No-go stimulus-response association always remained the same, and “complex” tasks in which the No-go stimulus-response association was manipulated based on information in working memory.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The event-related No-go versus baseline contrast used in the included studies reveals all regions critical to response inhibition, including those involved in response selection.

    “In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks, focusing on those studies using an event-related contrast of “No-go versus baseline,” in order to reveal all regions common to successfully inhibited No-go stimuli that may be critical to response inhibition.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Nearly all Go/No-go studies present stimuli at a Go:No-go ratio of at least 3:1.

    “nearly all Go/No-go studies present stimuli at a Go:No-go ratio of at least 3:1.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Error rates differ between Go and No-go trials; there are generally very few omission errors during Go trials but a large number of commission errors during No-go trials.

    “there are generally very few omission errors during Go trials but a large number of commission errors during No-go trials.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In ALE analyses, the only information taken into account is the location of the voxel of peak activation for each reported cluster, and this voxel is treated as the center of a three-dimensional Gaussian function.

    “In ALE analyses, the only information taken into account is the location of the voxel of peak activation for each reported cluster, and this voxel is treated as the center of a three-dimensional Gaussian function.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    ALE analyses do not consider the magnitude or extent of activation for each cluster.

    “ALE analyses do not consider the magnitude or extent of activation for each cluster”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    ALE does not weight studies based on their statistical power.

    “Another key issue with ALE is that studies are not weighted based on their statistical power.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A study with 48 subjects has more statistical power than a study with 11 subjects.

    “A study with 48 subjects has more statistical power than a study with 11 subjects”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Studies use different statistical methods and thresholds.

    “studies use different statistical methods and thresholds”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fixed effects studies' results cannot be generalized to the population as a whole.

    “fixed effects studies, as their results cannot be generalized to the population as a whole”
10 of 10

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 vlPFC is hypothesized to support choosing and inhibiting appraisals of stimuli or potentially to signal salience and the need to reappraise.

    “The vlPFC is hypothesized to support choosing and inhibiting appraisals of stimuli [121, 124, 125] or potentially may signal salience and the need to reappraise [122].”

    From Prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and threat processing: implications for PTSD (2022) · cites this paper as [125]

    The Discussion (section 4; page unavailable) discusses inferior frontal regions in response inhibition and working memory, but says right inferior frontal recruitment is not universal. It does not address choosing or inhibiting appraisals of stimuli. The salience-and-reappraisal clause has a separate citation in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The present results are consistent with the hypotheses that dlPFC may support manipulation of appraisals in working memory, vlPFC may support selection and inhibition of appraisals, and dmPFC may support semantic and self-reflective processes relevant to elaborating the affective meaning of stimuli or perceiving one's affective state.

    “Specifically, the present results are consistent with the hypotheses that dlPFC may support manipulation of appraisals in working memory (Wager and Smith 2003), vlPFC may support selection and inhibition of appraisals (Robbins 2007;Simmonds et al. 2008), and dmPFC may support semantic and self-reflective processes relevant to elaborating the affective meaning of stimuli or perceiving one's affect”

    From Cognitive Reappraisal of Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Human Neuroimaging Studies (2014) · cites this paper as Simmonds et al. 2008

    Split into 3 atoms — 0 confirmed, 3 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Right IFC/insula is a key region of cognitive control.

    “The area of increased activation, i.e., right IFC, bordering superior temporal lobe and reaching into insula, is a key region of cognitive control, as demonstrated by meta-analyses of fMRI studies of motor, interference inhibition, and switching 43, 44, 45, 46, transcranial magnetic stimulation 47, 48, 49, and lesion studies (50).”

    From Effects of stimulants on brain function in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Results report activation in the right middle/inferior frontal gyrus and bilateral insula for complex Go/No-go tasks, supporting a role in response inhibition. But the Discussion says right inferior frontal cortex recruitment is not universal and may be task-dependent; the paper does not establish the right IFC/insula as a generally key region of cognitive control. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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.”

    From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Simmonds et al. 2008

  • Previous 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”

    From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Simmonds et al. 2008

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.

  • Ten papers are later counted as eleven studies

    Minor

    The methods identify ten included studies, with one paper contributing both a simple and a complex task. The conclusion instead says eleven studies were selected; eleven is the number of task datasets, not distinct studies.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Suskauer, S. J., Simmonds, D. J., Fotedar, S. G., Blankner, J. G., Pekar, J. J., Denckla, M. B., et al. (in press). FMRI evidence for abnormalities in response selection in ADHD: Difference in activation associated with response inhibition but not habitual motor response. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H.
Affiliations
Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Mostofsky, Stewart H.
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
224-232
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015
PMC
PMC2327217
OpenAlex
W2070900017
Semantic Scholar
821cc580a8f4bfafb75c0ede445c6175096bcb6a
Cited by
1,015
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 51
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH085328, R01MH078160)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K02NS044850, K02 NS44850, R01NS047781)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR15241, P41RR015241)
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
response inhibition, go/no-go task, pre-supplementary motor area, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior parietal cortex, fusiform gyrus, working memory, response selection, frontal lobe activation, activation likelihood estimation
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Reaction Time, Meta-Analysis as Topic

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