The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 17 are not checked yet; 2 of the 82 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent
Open accessAbstract
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
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 Not checked yet · 17 Own interpretation · 11 Own result · 5 No basis given · 2 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“activation in right inferior parietal regions has been a very consistent finding across fMRI studies of response inhibition”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bellgrove et al., 2004 source
- Partly supportedcites Garavan et al., 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report right inferior parietal activation during response inhibition, and the Neuroanatomical Basis of Inhibitory Control section says prior neuroimaging studies found parietal activation. Neither passage establishes that right inferior parietal activation was a very consistent finding across fMRI studies. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked yetcites Wager et al., 2005 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Centrally relevant to the Go/No-go tasks is the importance of these circuits in maintaining representations of stimulus-response associations used to guide response selection”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hester et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion links parietal activity to maintaining stimulus–response associations and proposes that prefrontal activity enhances those representations during response selection. It presents this circuit-level account as an interpretation consistent with the results, rather than establishing as fact that the circuits maintain the associations. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.81)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis of the simple studies demonstrated concurrence in the right pre-SMA (BA6/32), bilateral occipital regions (BA19/37) and the precuneus (BA7).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Common to both simple and complex Go/No-go tasks was concurrence in the pre-SMA and the left fusiform gyrus.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both the simple and complex tasks, concurrence was also seen in the left fusiform gyrus (BA19/37)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Common to both simple and complex Go/No-go tasks was concurrence in the pre-SMA”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Findings from electrophysiology, human lesion and functional neuroimaging studies support the crucial role of the pre-SMA in response inhibition.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 30
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The simple and complex tasks demonstrated distinct patterns of concurrence, with right-lateralized prefrontal-parietal circuits observed only for the complex tasks”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One method of meta-analysis called activation likelihood estimate (ALE) (Turkeltaub et al., 2002), allows for statistically verifiable concurrence across functional neuroimaging studies.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Turkeltaub et al., 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Drewe et al., 1975
- Not checked yetcites Godefroy & Rousseaux, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Aron et al., 2003 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aron & Poldrack, 2005 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Braver et al., 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ikeda et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Ikeda et al., 1993
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mostofsky et al., 2003 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · hedged
In the paper
“Single-cell recordings in monkeys have demonstrated the involvement of a region analogous to the pre-SMA in response inhibition (Matsuzaka et al., 1992).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matsuzaka et al., 1992
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mostofsky & Simmonds, in press
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buchsbaum et al., 2005 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ball et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Barber and Carter, 2005
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“which has been emphasized by some studies to be critical to response inhibition”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aron & Poldrack, 2005 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Connolly et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Ball et al., 1999
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rockland & Pandya, 1979
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“examination of cortical thickness in ADHD revealed significant thinning principally localized to the pre-SMA”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shaw et al., 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a visual association region that has reciprocal connections with both posterior parietal and prefrontal areas”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leichnitz, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Pandya & Seltzer, 1982
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Courtney, 2004
- Not checked yetcites D'Esposito et al., 1998
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These circuits appear to be critical for executive control needed to guide goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corbetta & Shulman, 2002 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Courtney, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liddle et al., 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The inferior parietal cortex has extensive reciprocal connections with the prefrontal cortex”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petrides and Pandya, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Rushworth et al., 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the right DLPFC, which has been noted to play an important role in manipulation of information, such as stimulus-response associations, in working memory.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Courtney, 2004
- Not checked yetcites D'Esposito et al., 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“There is also much behavioral evidence indicating that the processes of response selection and inhibition are linked”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mostofsky & Simmonds, in press
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Drewe et al., 1975
- Not checked yetcites Garavan et al., 2003
- Not checked yetcites Wager et al., 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in Go/No-go tasks, it has been shown that commission errors, which are an indicator of inhibitory performance, correlate with response time variability”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bellgrove et al., 2004 source
- Not checked yetcites Simmonds et al., in press
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are several notable issues with the ALE method that may reduce the accuracy of the results.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- 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.
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”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing 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”
From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Simmonds et al. 2008
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“Simmonds et al. (2008), for example, included only 11 studies in their meta-analysis.”
From Large-scale functional neural network correlates of response inhibition: an fMRI meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Simmonds et al. (2008)
In the citing paper
“This pattern of findings was confirmed in a recent meta-analysis of studies using simple and complex GNG tasks (Simmonds, Pekar, & Mostofsky, 2008).”
From Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands (2009) · cites this paper as Simmonds, Pekar, & Mostofsky, 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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5. Conclusions
“Eleven studies were selected and divided into two groups”
§ 2. Methods > 2.1 Study Selection
“After these criteria were applied, ten studies remained”
Citations
Cites
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain
Laitinen, L. (1989) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/0303-8467(89)90128-5 · Cited by 7,565
Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory
Curtis, C. E., & D'Esposito, M. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00197-9 · Cited by 2,001
Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans
Aron, A. R., Fletcher, P. C., Bullmore, E. T., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1003 · Cited by 1,771
Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: method and validation
Turkeltaub, P. E., Eden, G. F., Jones, K. M., & Zeffiro, T. A. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1131 · Cited by 1,604
Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: An event-related functional MRI study
Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., & Stein, E. A. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.14.8301 · Cited by 1,394
Picard, N., & Strick, P. L. (2001) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(01)00266-5 · Cited by 1,184
Projections to the frontal cortex from the posterior parietal region in the rhesus monkey
Petrides, M., & Pandya, D. (1984) · The Journal of comparative neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.902280110 · Cited by 1,101
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Items 701–800 of 999
Right inferior frontal cortex and preSMA in response inhibition: An investigation based on PTC model
Wu, L., Jiang, M., Zhao, M., Hu, X., Wang, J., Zhang, K., Jia, K., Ren, F., & Gao, F. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121004 · Cited by 5
Kang, D., Uchida, K., Haider, C. R., Campeau, N. G., In, M., Gray, E. M., Trzasko, J. D., Welker, K. M., Gunter, J. L., Bernstein, M. A., et al. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121302 · Cited by 6
Surani, Z., Turesky, T. K., Sullivan, E., Shama, T., Haque, R., Islam, N., Kakon, S. H., Yu, X., Petri, W. A., Nelson, C. A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106072 · Cited by 7
Cognitive Control, Reward, and the Basal Ganglia
Koziol, L. F. (2014) · SpringerBriefs in neuroscience · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04477-4_18 · Cited by 6
Pihko, E., Lönnberg, P., Lauronen, L., Wolford, E., Andersson, S., Lano, A., Metsäranta, M., & Nevalainen, P. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00666 · Cited by 7
Bayesian Nonparametric Joint Mixture Model for Clustering Spatially Correlated Time Series
Lee, Y., & Kim, H. (2019) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.2019.1635532 · Cited by 6
The Iowa Resistance to Sleeplessness Test (iREST)
Križan, Z., & Hisler, G. C. (2021) · Sleep Health · doi:10.1016/j.sleh.2020.12.002 · Cited by 6
Li, J., Liu, Z., Du, Z., Zhu, N., Qiu, X., & Xu, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.774656 · Cited by 7
Reduced brain activation during inhibitory control in children with COMT Val/Val genotype
Cope, L. M., Hardee, J. E., Soules, M. E., Burmeister, M., Zucker, R. A., & Heitzeg, M. M. (2016) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.577 · Cited by 6
Byrne, A., Kokmotou, K., Roberts, H., Soto, V., Tyson‐Carr, J., Hewitt, D., Giesbrecht, T., & Stančák, A. (2020) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-020-05825-8 · Cited by 6
Li, C.-S. R. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397025-1.00248-7 · Cited by 8
Kalhan, S., Chen, L. P. E., Garrido, M. I., & Hester, R. (2022) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.13159 · Cited by 6
The Complexity of Impulsivity Dimensions among Abstinent Individuals with Substance Use Disorders
Cavicchioli, M., Movalli, M., Bruni, A., Terragni, R., Bellintani, S., Ricchiuti, A., Borgia, E., Borelli, G., Goldoni, M. E., Piazza, L., et al. (2022) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.2022.2113482 · Cited by 6
Essays in experimental and neuroeconomics
Gerhardt, H. (2013) · edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) · doi:10.18452/16722 · Cited by 6
Patai, E. Z., Foltynie, T., Limousin, P. D., Akram, H., Zrinzo, L. U., Bogacz, R., & Vladimir Litvak, A. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.06.09.141713 · Cited by 6
The inhibitory control deficit of internet gaming disorder: An Event-Related Potentials(ERPs) study
Yu, J., Abdullah, M. F. I. L. B., & Mansor, N. S. (2024) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2024.115253 · Cited by 5
Ehmann, S., Sezer, I., Keller, A. S., Treves, I. N., & Sacchet, M. D. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121602 · Cited by 8
Kang, D., Uchida, K., Haider, C. R., Campeau, N. G., In, M., Gray, E. M., Trzasko, J. D., Welker, K. M., Bernstein, M. A., Trenerry, M. R., et al. (2026) · Brain Research Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2026.111748 · Cited by 5
Applying inhibitory control theories to shoot/don't‐shoot decisions
Biggs, A. T. (2021) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3905 · Cited by 6
A functional near-infrared spectroscopy investigation of item-method directed forgetting
Jing, J., Qi, M., & Gao, H. (2022) · Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1016/j.neures.2022.09.001 · Cited by 4
Zhao, S., Yuan, R., Gao, W., Liu, Q., & Yuan, J. (2023) · Psychoradiology · doi:10.1093/psyrad/kkad012 · Cited by 8
The Role of Inhibitory Control in the Hospitalization of Children with Severe Psychiatric Disorders
Kavanaugh, B. C., Dupont-Frechette, J. A., Tellock, P. P., Maher, I. D., Haisley, L. D., & Holler, K. A. (2015) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2015.1093174 · Cited by 5
Go/NoGo continuous performance task in the psychophysiological research
Mestanikova, A., Ondrejka, I., Mestanik, M., Hrtánek, I., Šnircová, E., & Tonhajzerová, I. (2015) · Cognitive Remediation Journal · doi:10.5507/crj.2015.002 · Cited by 6
Liu, H., Liu, Y., Dong, X., Liu, H., & Han, B. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755635 · Cited by 5
Electrocorticography to Investigate Age-Related Brain Lateralization on Pediatric Motor Inhibition
Kuo, C., Casimo, K., Wu, J., Collins, K. L., Rice, P. G., Chen, B., Yang, S., Lo, Y., Novotny, E. J., Weaver, K. E., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.747053 · Cited by 5
Neuropsychological findings in migraine: a systematic review
Hakamäki, H., & Jehkonen, M. (2022) · Dementia & Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1590/1980-5764-dn-2022-0004 · Cited by 5
Attentional Demand of Motor Speech Encoding: Evidence From Parkinson's Disease
Fournet, M., Chiuvé, S. C., & Laganaro, M. (2022) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2022_jslhr-22-00096 · Cited by 5
Ethnicity, minority status, and inter-group bias: A systematic meta-analysis on fMRI studies
Saarinen, A. I. L., Keltikangas‐Järvinen, L., & Ravaja, N. (2023) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.1072345 · Cited by 5
Schott, N., Mündörfer, A., & Holfelder, B. (2023) · Children · doi:10.3390/children10081332 · Cited by 10
Motes, M. A., Rao, N. K., Kojori, E. S., Chiang, H., Kraut, M. A., & Hart, J. (2017) · Magnetic Resonance Insights · doi:10.1177/1178623x17746693 · Cited by 4
Rewarding safe choices in peer contexts: Adolescent brain activity during decision making
Hinnant, J. B., McWood, L. M., Yanes, J. A., McCormick, M., Murphy, J. E., Erath, S. A., & Robinson, J. L. (2019) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.01.008 · Cited by 8
Incentives and voluntary stopping: The intentional hand task
Weidacker, K., Kvamme, T. L., Whiteford, S., Guzman, N. V., & Voon, V. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104504 · Cited by 5
Age dependent neural correlates of inhibition and control mechanisms in moderate to heavy drinkers
Swartz, M., Burton, F., Vakamudi, K., Al‐Khalil, K., Witkiewitz, K. A., & Claus, E. D. (2021) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102875 · Cited by 5
Korponay, C. H. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221120033 · Cited by 5
Kaiser, J., Gentsch, A., Rodriguez-Manrique, D., & Schütz‐Bosbach, S. (2022) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac478 · Cited by 5
The impact of sensation seeking personality trait on acute alcohol-induced disinhibition
Wei, L., Ding, F., Gong, M., Baeken, C., & Wu, G. (2023) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.110907 · Cited by 5
Farshad, M., Artemenko, C., Cipora, K., Svaldi, J., & Schroeder, P. A. (2024) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.25304 · Cited by 4
Sweerts, S. J., & Romo, L. (2020) · Annales Médico-psychologiques revue psychiatrique · doi:10.1016/j.amp.2020.01.016 · Cited by 5
Assessment of the Effects of Digital Educational Material on Executive Function Performance
Nieto-Márquez, N. L., Martínez, A. C., Baldominos, A., Petronila, A. G., & Nieto, M. Á. P. (2020) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.545709 · Cited by 9
Albarracín, D., Wang, W., & McCulloch, K. C. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167218756031 · Cited by 5
Training response inhibition to reduce food consumption
Adams, R. C. (2014) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · Cited by 5
EEG and fMRI studies of the effects of stimulus properties on the control of attention
Vassallo, M., & Andrés, C. (2015) · Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) · Cited by 5
The Neuroanatomy and Neurochemistry of Response Inhibition
Forstmann, B. U., & Alkemade, A. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118920497.ch16 · Cited by 5
Baek, K., Skandali, N., Sallie, S. N., Sonkusare, S., Mandali, A., Ritou, V., Casero, V., & Voon, V. (2025) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2024.12.019 · Cited by 4
Cognitive fatigability and neuronal correlates in chronic pain – A cross-sectional fMRI study
Holmqvist, A., Nordin, L. E., Berginström, N., Löfgren, M., Nyberg, L. H., Stålnacke, B., & Möller, M. C. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0332799 · Cited by 4
Chmiel, J., & Kurpas, D. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15031306 · Cited by 4
Faridi, A., Taremian, F., & Thatcher, R. W. (2024) · Clinical EEG and Neuroscience · doi:10.1177/15500594241283069 · Cited by 4
Grégoire, C., Attout, L., Phillips, C. L. M., Rifon, L., Hody, L., & Majerus, S. (2024) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_02260 · Cited by 2
Smullen, D., Bagshaw, A. P., Shalev, L., Tsafrir, S., Kolodny, T., & Mevorach, C. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02326-y · Cited by 4
Reward, Reinforcement, and Impulsivity in Obesity
Verdejo‐García, A. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1203-2_2 · Cited by 5
Executive function as a predictor of physics-related conceptual change
Thibault, F., & Potvin, P. (2018) · Neuroeducation · doi:10.24046/neuroed.20180502.119 · Cited by 6
Metzak, P. D., Addington, J., Hassel, S., Goldstein, B. I., MacIntosh, B. J., Lebel, C. A., Wang, J., Kennedy, S. H., MacQUEEN, G. M., & Bray, S. (2020) · Early Intervention in Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/eip.13078 · Cited by 4
Sulpizio, V., Berchicci, M., Russo, F. D., Galati, G., Grasso, M. G., Iosa, M., Lucci, G., Paolucci, S., Ripani, M., & Pitzalis, S. (2021) · Brain Topography · doi:10.1007/s10548-021-00858-w · Cited by 4
Romanczuk‐Seiferth, N., & Thienel, R. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29800-4_22 · Cited by 4
Lamp, G., Molina, R. S., Hugrass, L., Beaton, R., Crewther, D. P., & Crewther, S. G. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12111581 · Cited by 4
Grégoire, C., & Majerus, S. (2023) · Psychologica Belgica · doi:10.5334/pb.1184 · Cited by 5
The Neural Basis of Decision Making in Addiction
Bechara, A. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-398335-0.00035-2 · Cited by 4
Temporal Dynamics of fNIRS-Recorded Signals Revealed Via Visibility Graph
Zhu, L., & Najafizadeh, L. (2016) · Biomedical optics · doi:10.1364/cancer.2016.jw3a.53 · Cited by 4
The Injury Mechanism and Reversibility on Inhibitory Control Function of Heroin Addicts
Yang, L., ZHANG, G., & Zhao, X. H. (2014) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2014.00439 · Cited by 3
Moore, K. S., Porter, C. B., & Weissman, D. H. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.042 · Cited by 4
Memory suppression can help people “unlearn” behavioral responses—but only for nonemotional memories
Sakaki, M., Kuhbandner, C., Mather, M., & Pekrun, R. H. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0480-6 · Cited by 4
Kropotov, J. D., Mueller, A., & Ponomarev, V. A. (2010) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-382235-2.00003-2 · Cited by 4
Meditation, Sleep, and Performance
Guerriero, L. E., & O’Hara, B. F. (2019) · OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine · doi:10.21926/obm.icm.1902031 · Cited by 6
A Hierarchical Graphical Model for Big Inverse Covariance Estimation with an Application to fMRIPreprint
Luo, X. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1403.4698 · Cited by 4
Bardo, M. T., Charnigo, R. J., Shaykin, J. D., Malone, S. G., Ortinski, P. I., & Turner, J. R. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106175 · Cited by 3
Duck, S. A., Chen, L., Papantoni, A., Benson, L., Thapaliya, G., Jansen, E., Nebel, M. B., Mostofsky, S. H., Rosch, K. S., & Carnell, S. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121516 · Cited by 4
Self-citationDeligani, R. J., Opri, E., Risk, B. B., Goldstein, F. C., Factor, S. A., Higginbotham, L. A., Swann, N. C., & Miocinovic, S. (2025) · Neurobiology of Disease · doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2025.107195 · Cited by 3
Bao, S., Boyd, B. D., Kanakaraj, P., Ramadass, K., Meyer, F. A. C., Liu, Y., Duett, W. E., Huo, Y., Lyu, I., Zald, D. H., et al. (2022) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-022-00679-8 · Cited by 5
The yes–no reversal phenomenon in patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech
Meade, G. F., Pham, N. T. T., Schwarz, C. G., Clark, H. M., Duffy, J. R., Senjem, M. L., Lowe, V. J., Botha, H., Whitwell, J. L., Josephs, K. A., et al. (2024) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2024.04.008 · Cited by 3
Gilbert, D. L., Crocetti, D., Horn, P. S., Wu, S. W., Huddleston, D. A., Ehrman, J. M., Migneault, K. Y., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2025) · Annals of the Child Neurology Society · doi:10.1002/cns3.20101 · Cited by 3
Self-citationPatterns of brain activity in choice or instructed go and no-go tasks
Attaripour, S., McGurrin, P. M., Felipe Vial, U., & Hallett, M. (2025) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-025-07027-6 · Cited by 6
Effective connectivity analysis of response inhibition functional network
Giuliano, M. D., Schumann, A., de la Cruz, F., da Silva, P. H. R., & Bär, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1525038 · Cited by 3
Sheng, J., Xia, Y., Hua, L., Zhou, H., Liao, Q., Tian, S., Du, Y., Wang, X., Yan, R., Sun, H., et al. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121234 · Cited by 4
Moniz, M., de Jesús, S. N., Gonçalves, E., Viseu, J. N. R., Pacheco, A., & Moreira, S. (2016) · Psychology · doi:10.4236/psych.2016.72027 · Cited by 3
Cerebral activation of attention and working memory in traumatic brain injury
Stein, A., Iyer, K. K., & Barlow, K. M. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823347-4.00025-7 · Cited by 3
Mirajkar, S., & Waring, J. D. (2023) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2023.2208860 · Cited by 3
Chen, R., Jiao, Y., Zhu, J.-S., & Wang, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2023.1196290 · Cited by 3
Tonhajzerová, I., Ferencová, N., Ondrejka, I., Hrtánek, I., Farský, I., Kukucka, T., & Višňovcová, Z. (2023) · Life · doi:10.3390/life13112230 · Cited by 3
Chiang, H., Motes, M. A., Afkhami-Rohani, B., Adhikari, A., LoBue, C., Kraut, M. A., Cullum, C. M., & Hart, J. (2024) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2024.04.002 · Cited by 4
Burklund, L. J., Davies, C. D., Niles, A. N., Torre, J. B., Brown, L. A., Vinograd, M., Lieberman, M. D., & Craske, M. G. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1270424 · Cited by 5
Yang, Y., Yuan, S., Lin, H., Han, Y., Zhang, B., & Yu, J. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03303-9 · Cited by 3
Falck, R. S., Hsu, C. L., Silva, N. C. B. S., LI, L. C., Best, J. R., & Liu-Ambrose, T. Y. L. (2022) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.13692 · Cited by 3
Osborne, A. K., & Riby, L. M. (2016) · Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) · doi:10.12691/rpbs-4-1-1 · Cited by 3
Schroeder, P. A., Artemenko, C., Cipora, K., & Svaldi, J. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.24559 · Cited by 3
Reaching to inhibit a prepotent response: A wearable 3-axis accelerometer kinematic analysis
Angeli, A., Valori, I., Farroni, T., & Marfia, G. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254514 · Cited by 3
Lateralization of the cerebral network of inhibition in children before and after cognitive training
Omont, S., Menu, I., Salvia, É., Poirel, N., Oppenheim, C., Houdé, O., Cachia, A., & Borst, G. (2023) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2023.101293 · Cited by 5
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Addiction Research
Sweet, L. H., Amlung, M. T., & MacKillop, J. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118384404.ch23 · Cited by 3
Non-selective response inhibition in equiprobable Go/NoGo task: Bayesian analysis of fMRI dataPreprint
Masharipov, R. S., Korotkov, A., Medvedev, S., & Kireev, M. V. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/823625 · Cited by 4
Auditory processing of interlingual homophones: an fNIRS investigation
Mutlu, M. C., Canbeyli, R. S., & Saybaşılı, H. (2023) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2023.2213785 · Cited by 2
Presbrey, K. N., Wozny, T. A., Louie, K. H., Little, S. J., Starr, P. A., Abbasi-Asl, R., & Wang, D. D. (2025) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1542493 · Cited by 2
Zou, H., Bao, C., Wang, X., Zhang, Q., Chen, Z., Hua, L., Yan, R., Veniero, D., Lu, Q., & Yao, Z. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.119617 · Cited by 2
Wallenwein, L. A., Schmidt, S. N. L., Barzyk, P., Bieleke, M., Schüler, J., Grüber, M., & Mier, D. U. (2025) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhaf228 · Cited by 2
Augusto‐Oliveira, M., Arrifano, G. D. P., Leal-Nazaré, C. G., Soares-Silva, I., Santos-Sacramento, L., Lopes-Araújo, A., Arrifano, F. P., de Souza, C. B. A., Lago-Pinheiro, C., & Lopez, M. E. C. (2025) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180537 · Cited by 2
Antón‐Toro, L. F., Shpakivska‐Bilán, D., López-Abad, L., del Cerro‐León, A., Uceta, M., Bruna, R., García‐Moreno, L. M., & Maestú, F. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1696748 · Cited by 2
Kwag, E., & Zijlstra, W. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-44189-x · Cited by 2
The effects of age-bias on neural correlates of successful and unsuccessful response inhibition
Hanley, C., Burns, N., Thomas, H. R., Marstaller, L., & Burianová, H. (2022) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113877 · Cited by 2
Peng, Y., & Wang, Z. (2024) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci14040404 · Cited by 2
Gu, A., Chan, C. L., Xu, X., Dexter, J. P., Becker, B., & Zhao, Z. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/64687 · Cited by 2
Elliott, M., Hsu, M., Uddin, L. Q., Modavi, K., & Johnson, S. L. (2025) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/21677026241305377 · Cited by 2
Giuliani, N. R., & Kelly, N. R. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.788583 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mostofsky, Stewart H.
- Venue
- Neuropsychologia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 224-232
- ISSN
- 0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
