Cited by 58Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMind wandering and attentionMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 123 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

An fMRI investigation of the relationship between future imagination and cognitive flexibility

Open access
Roberts, R.P., Wiebels, K., Sumner, R.L., van Mulukom, V., Grady, C.L., Schacter, D.L., Addis, D.R.·2017·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

While future imagination is largely considered to be a cognitive process grounded in default mode network activity, studies have shown that future imagination recruits regions in both default mode and frontoparietal control networks. In addition, it has recently been shown that the ability to imagine the future is associated with cognitive flexibility, and that tasks requiring cognitive flexibility result in increased coupling of the default mode network with frontoparietal control and salience networks. In the current study, we investigated the neural correlates underlying the association between cognitive flexibility and future imagination in two ways. First, we experimentally varied the degree of cognitive flexibility required during future imagination by manipulating the disparateness of episodic details contributing to imagined events. To this end, participants generated episodic details (persons, locations, objects) within three social spheres; during fMRI scanning they were presented with sets of three episodic details all taken from the same social sphere (Congruent condition) or different social spheres (Incongruent condition) and required to imagine a future event involving the three details. We predicted that, relative to the Congruent condition, future simulation in the Incongruent condition would be associated with increased activity in regions of the default mode, frontoparietal and salience networks. Second, we hypothesized that individual differences in cognitive flexibility, as measured by performance on the Alternate Uses Task, would correspond to individual differences in the brain regions recruited during future imagination. A task partial least squares (PLS) analysis showed that the Incongruent condition resulted in an increase in activity in regions in salience networks (e.g. the insula) but, contrary to our prediction, reduced activity in many regions of the default mode network (including the hippocampus). A subsequent functional connectivity (within-subject seed PLS) analysis showed that the insula exhibited increased coupling with default mode regions during the Incongruent condition. Finally, a behavioral PLS analysis showed that individual differences in cognitive flexibility were associated with differences in activity in a number of regions from frontoparietal, salience and default-mode networks during both future imagination conditions, further highlighting that the cognitive flexibility underlying future imagination is grounded in the complex interaction of regions in these networks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.019

Cites

123 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cognitive and neuroimaging evidence indicate a connection between episodic future thinking and divergent creative thinking.

    “both cognitive and neuroimaging evidence indicate a connection between episodic future thinking and divergent creative thinking (94–95)”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [95]

  • The hippocampus has a general associative role, supporting construction of both scenes and the events within them.

    “we have argued that the hippocampus plays a more general associative role, supporting the construction of both scenes and the events that play out within those scenes (Roberts, Schacter, & Addis, 2017).”

    From Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. (2020) · cites this paper as Roberts, Schacter, & Addis, 2017

  • We observed lower posterior DMN demands during simulation of future events involving incongruent relative to congruent details, as have others during simulation in unfamiliar versus familiar contexts.

    “We observed this phenomenon during simulation of future events involving incongruent (relative to congruent) details (Roberts, Wiebels, et al., 2017), as have others during tasks involving simulation of events in unfamiliar (versus familiar) contexts (Szpunar, Chan, & McDermott, 2009).”

    From Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. (2020) · cites this paper as Roberts, Wiebels, et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bartlett, F.C., 1932. Remembering. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from 〈http://www.cambridge.org/nz/academic/subjects/psychology/cognition/remembering-study-experimental-and-social-psychology-2nd-edition?Format=PB&isbn=9780521483568〉

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Roberts, R. P., Wiebels, K., Sumner, R. L., van Mulukom, V., Grady, C. L., Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Roberts, R.P.
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
95
Pages
156-172
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2558729010
Cited by
58
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Marsden Fund Grant (12-UOA-254)
  • Rutherford Discovery Fellowship (RDF-10-UOA-024)
  • NIMH Grant (MH060941)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
future imagination, cognitive flexibility, default mode network, frontoparietal network, salience network, social sphere, alternative uses task, individual differences, insula, hippocampus, functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Imagination, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Thinking, Least-Squares Analysis, Young Adult, Executive Function, Memory, Episodic

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