Cited by 2,044Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex

Abstract

The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), on the medial surface of the frontal lobes of the brain, is widely believed to be involved in the regulation of attention. Beyond this, however, its specific contribution to cognition remains uncertain. One influential theory has interpreted activation within the ACC as reflecting 'selection-for-action', a set of processes that guide the selection of environmental objects as triggers of or targets for action. We have proposed an alternative hypothesis, in which the ACC serves not to exert top-down attentional control but instead to detect and signal the occurrence of conflicts in information processing. Here, to test this theory against the selection-for-action theory, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain activation during performance of a task where, for a particular subset of trials, the strength of selection-for-action is inversely related to the degree of response conflict. Activity within the ACC was greater during trials featuring high levels of conflict (and weak selection-for-action) than during trials with low levels of conflict (and strong selection-for-action), providing evidence in favour of the conflict-monitoring account of ACC function.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/46035

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 19 references

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carter,C. S. et al. Strategic vs. evaluative contributions of the anterior cingulate cortex to executive processes of cognition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA (submitted).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,011

Metadata

Authors
Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Botvinick, Matthew
Venue
Nature
Published
1999-11
Volume
402
Issue
6758
Pages
179-181
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1659864209
Cited by
2,044
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 101 · 2014: 118 · 2013: 121 · 2012: 84
FWCI
19.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fetzer Institute
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • National Institute of Mental Health
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
anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, response conflict, top-down attentional control, cognitive control, action selection
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Motor Activity

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