Cited by 309Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesCognitive Abilities and Testing

The Multi-Source Interference Task: an fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network

Bush, George, Shin, Lisa M·2006·Nature Protocols

Abstract

In this protocol we describe how to perform the Multi-Source Interference Task (MSIT), a validated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) task that reliably and robustly activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network (CFP network) within individual subjects. The MSIT can be used to (i) identify the cognitive/attention network in normal volunteers and (ii) test its integrity in people with neuropsychiatric disorders. It is simple to perform, can be completed in less than 15 min and is not language specific, making it appropriate for children, adults and the elderly. Since its validation, over 100 adults have performed the task. The MSIT produces a robust and temporally stable reaction time interference effect (range 200-350 ms), and single runs of the MSIT have produced CFP network activation in approximately 95% of tested subjects. The robust, reliable and temporally stable neuroimaging and performance data make the MSIT a useful task with which to study normal human cognition and psychiatric pathophysiology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nprot.2006.48

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • The data are difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the left inferior frontal gyrus is engaged in domain general cognitive control.

    “Our data are difficult to reconcile with the widely favored hypothesis that this region is engaged in domain general cognitive control (8, 17); although we do see a weak response to the Stroop task in this region, we find no hint of activation for either of the other two cognitive control tasks [the MSIT task (39) and its variant, verbal MSIT (vMSIT)].”
  • The left inferior frontal gyrus language region of interest shows no hint of activation for the MSIT task or its variant, verbal MSIT.

    “we find no hint of activation for either of the other two cognitive control tasks [the MSIT task (39) and its variant, verbal MSIT (vMSIT)]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bush, G., & Shin, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Bush, George
Venue
Nature Protocols
Published
2006-06
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
308-313
ISSN
  • 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-2189
OpenAlex
W2001165927
Cited by
309
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 21
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Protocols (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea
  • U.S. Public Health Service (NIMH 01611)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
Multi-Source Interference Task, interference effects, reaction time, task validation, neuropsychiatric disorders, network integrity, temporal stability
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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