Dissociable neural mechanisms underlying response-based and familiarity-based conflict in working memory
Open accessAbstract
Cognitive control requires the resolution of interference among competing and potentially conflicting representations. Such conflict can emerge at different points between stimulus input and response generation, with the net effect being that of compromising performance. The goal of this article was to dissociate the neural mechanisms underlying different sources of conflict to elucidate the architecture of the neural systems that implement cognitive control. By using functional magnetic resonance imaging and a verbal working memory task (item recognition), we examined brain activity related to two kinds of conflict with comparable behavioral consequences. In a trial of our item-recognition task, participants saw four letters, followed by a retention interval, and a probe letter that did or did not match one of the letters held in working memory (positive probe and negative probe, respectively). On some trials, conflict arose solely because of the current negative probe having a high familiarity, due to its membership in the immediately preceding trial's target set. On other trials, additional conflict arose because of the current negative probe having also been a positive probe on the immediately preceding trial, producing response-level conflict. Consistent with previous work, conflict due to high familiarity was associated with left prefrontal activation, but not with anterior cingulate activation. The response-conflict condition, when compared with high-familiarity confli…
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?
These connections also explain why anterior midcingulate cortex resolves action selection during situations involving conflicting sensory information.
“They also explain why the aMCC is responsible for resolving action selection during situations involving conflicting sensory information (e.g., Grindband et al. in press; Milham et al. 2001; Nelson et al. 2003; see Banich 2009; Shackman et al. 2011; van Snellenberg & Wager 2009).”
From The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review (2012) · cites this paper as Nelson et al. 2003
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 188
- Authors
- Nelson, J. K., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Sylvester, C.-Y. C., Jonides, J., & Smith, E. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 525 East University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2003-09-04
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 11171-11175
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC196946
- OpenAlex
- W2157187630
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 6.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (AG 18286, R01AG018286)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- cognitive control, response conflict, working memory, item recognition, anterior cingulate cortex, left prefrontal cortex, conflict monitoring, interference resolution, double dissociation
- MeSH terms
- Conflict, Psychological, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Memory, Nervous System Physiological Phenomena
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