Cited by 27Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and InterventionsFree Will and Agency

Controlling the self: The role of the dorsal frontomedian cortex in intentional inhibition

Lynn, Margaret T., Muhle-Karbe, Paul S., Brass, Marcel·2014·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

Intentional inhibition refers to the suppression of ongoing behavior on the basis of internally-generated decisions. This ability to cancel planned actions at the last moment is thought to be critical for self-control and has been related to activation in a circumscribed region of the dorsal frontomedian cortex (dFMC). Preliminary theories of intentional inhibition were based on studies that exclusively examined the cancellation of motor responses, and consequently concluded that this region serves the suppression of motor output. Yet recent evidence suggests that the dFMC is also involved in inhibitory control over more abstract internal states such as emotions or desires that have no immediate behavioral output. In this review, we therefore wish to put forth a new integrative perspective on the role of the dFMC in human self-control. We will argue that by virtue of its anatomical location and functional connections, this area may subserve the disengagement from current urges and impulses, thus facilitating successful exertions of self-control across a wide range of contexts by overcoming a self-focused perspective. We will discuss the fit of this view of the dFMC with the existing literature, identify critical experimental determinants for engaging the dFMC in intentional inhibition, and outline promising perspectives for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.009

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In methamphetamine abusers, a specific deficit in inhibiting proponent motor responses during the stop signal task and cognitive inhibition in the Stroop task was observed.

    “For example, a specific deficit in inhibiting proponent motor responses during the stop signal task (Mittner et al. 2014) as well as cognitive inhibition in the Stroop task (Lynn et al. 2014; Ganos et al. 2014) was observed in methamphetamine abusers.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lynn, M. T., Muhle-Karbe, P. S., & Brass, M.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Lynn, Margaret T.
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
65
Pages
247-254
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996522986
Cited by
27
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Science Foundation’s EUROVETO project (09-ECRP-020)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
intentional inhibition, self-control, impulse control, emotional inhibition, inhibitory control
MeSH terms
Frontal Lobe, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Intention, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review