Monitoring demands for executive control: shared functions between human and nonhuman primates
Open accessAbstract
Fifteen years ago, an influential model proposed that the human dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) detects conflict and induces adaptive control of behavior. Over the years support for this model has been mixed, in particular due to divergent findings in human versus nonhuman primates. We here review recent findings that suggest greater commonalities across species. These include equivalent behavioral consequences of conflict and similar neuronal signals in the dACC, but also a common failure of dACC lesions to reliably abolish conflict-driven behavior. We conclude that conflict might be one among many drivers of adjustments in executive control and that the ACC might be just one component of overlapping distributed systems involved in context-dependent learning and behavioral control.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 macaque anterior cingulate cortex executive control function may not always be revealed by selective lesions because it is shared with other frontal areas.
“but that this executive control function may not always be revealed by selective lesions as this function is shared with other frontal areas (Mansouri et al., 2017).”
From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Mansouri et al., 2017
Cingulate projections may be involved in the maintenance and cortical integration of information from limbic structures, including conflict between the current status and perceived indicators of change.
“Reflecting these roles, cingulate projections may be involved in the maintenance and cortical integration of information from limbic structures, which includes conflict between the current status and perceived indicators of change (Mansouri et al., 2017; Rushworth et al., 2004).”
From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Mansouri et al., 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 90 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Mansouri, F. A., Egner, T., & Buckley, M. J.
- Affiliations
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function (AU)
- Duke University (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mansouri, Farshad A.
- Venue
- Trends in Neurosciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-27
- ISSN
- 0166-2236 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2563157237
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trends in Neurosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (101092/Z/13/Z)
- Medical Research Council (MR/K005480/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Keywords
- executive function, conflict monitoring, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, non-human primates, human-primate comparison, context-dependent learning, behavioral control
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Conflict, Psychological, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Models, Neurological, Primates, 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
