Cited by 244Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

Selecting Among Competing Alternatives: Selection and Retrieval in the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus

Open access
Moss, H.E., Abdallah, S., Fletcher, P., Bright, P., Pilgrim, L., Acres, K., Tyler, L.K.·2005·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

It has been widely argued that the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) is involved in the control of retrieval of information from long-term memory. Recent claims that the LIFG is involved in selecting among semantic alternatives have been challenged on the grounds that the manipulation of selection demands may have been confounded with controlled retrieval. The current study used an event-related functional magnetic resonance paradigm to re-examine the possibility that LIFG activation is involved in selection processes. In order to minimize potential confounding effects of controlled retrieval, we used an automatic retrieval task (picture naming) and held retrieval demands constant, while varying selection demands by way of competitor priming from earlier semantically related trials. We found significant activation in LIFG as a function of increased selection demands; activation centred on two peaks, one in anterior LIFG and a second more superior and posterior region. These data support the view that LIFG plays a role in selection among semantic information, even in the absence of controlled retrieval processes.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhi049

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • HRT's competing response includes engagement in different motor actions, thereby activating different brain areas and cognitive structures.

    “Whilst both of these forms of competing response overlap functionally, in terms of depending on inhibitory brain mechanisms [45], the former relies on pure suppression (i.e. no response taking place), while the latter includes engagement in different motor actions , thereby activating different brain areas and cognitive structures [46 -51]”

    From Habit as a therapeutic component in psychological treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomised controlled feasibility study. (2026) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Results > Activations and Discussion (page unavailable) report greater activation in several left inferior frontal gyrus regions when participants selected among competing picture names. They do not examine habit reversal training (HRT) or show that engaging in different motor actions activates different brain areas and cognitive structures. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Dronkers N Redfern B Knight R Gazzaniga MS The neural architecture of language disorders The new cognitive neurosciences 2000 949 958 MIT Press Cambridge MA
  2. Goodglass H Whitaker H Whitaker HA Agrammatism Studies in neurolinguistics 1976 Vol 2 237 260 Academic Press New York
  3. Wagner AD Squire LR Schachter DL Cognitive control and episodic memory: contributions from prefrontal cortex Neuropsychology of memory 2001 Guildford Press New York 3rd ed.
  4. Zurif EB Gleitman L Liberman M Brain regions of relevance to syntactic processing An invitation to cognitive science 1995 Vol. 1 MIT Press Cambridge, MA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moss, H. E., Abdallah, S., Fletcher, P., Bright, P., Pilgrim, L., Acres, K., & Tyler, L. K.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Moss, H.E.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2005-02-23
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
1723-1735
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2154436532
Cited by
244
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (064351)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
left inferior frontal gyrus, semantic selection, semantic search, picture naming, semantic interference, event-related fMRI
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Memory, Semantics, Information Storage and Retrieval

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