Cited by 270Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFree Will and Agency

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dissociating Inhibition, Attention, and Response Control in the Frontoparietal Network Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Open access
Dodds, C. M., Morein-Zamir, S., Robbins, T. W.·2011·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Evidence suggests that the right inferior frontal cortex (IFC) plays a specialized role in response inhibition. However, more recent findings indicate a broader role for this region in attentional control. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine the functional role of the right IFC in attention, inhibition, and response control in 2 experiments that employed novel variations of the go/no-go task. Across the 2 experiments, we observed a graded response in the right insula/IFC, whereby increasing response control demands led to an increase in activation. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that this region plays a key role in the integration of bottom-up, sensory information with top-down, response-related information to facilitate flexible, goal-directed behavior.

Overview

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/bhq187

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Task structure in experiment 1. (a) A sequence of trials from the complex version of the task. In this sequence, the subject was required to respond to male faces and withhold responding to female faces when attending to faces and to respond to 2-storey houses and withhold responding to 1-storey houses when attending to houses. The subject initially attends to faces, as indicated by the red border, and then shifts attention to houses, as indicated by the blue border. (b) A sequence of trials from the simple version of the task. In this sequence, the subject attended to faces and responded to male faces while withholding responses to female faces. (c) The sequence of events in a single trial.
Figure 1. Task structure in experiment 1. (a) A sequence of trials from the complex version of the task. In this sequence, the subject was required to respond to male faces and withhold responding to female faces when attending to faces and to respond to 2-storey houses and withhold responding to 1-storey houses when attending to houses. The subject initially attends to faces, as indicated by the red border, and then shifts attention to houses, as indicated by the blue border. (b) A sequence of trials from the simple version of the task. In this sequence, the subject attended to faces and responded to male faces while withholding responses to female faces. (c) The sequence of events in a single trial.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. fMRI results from experiment 1. (a) Areas commonly activated during stop and shift trials relative to go trials in the complex version of the task from experiment 1, overlaid on the MNI template brain. (b) Areas significantly activated during stop trials relative to go trials in the simple version of the task, overlaid on the MNI template brain. All clusters are significant at P < 0.05 corrected for FDR and contain at least 20 voxels.
Figure 2. fMRI results from experiment 1. (a) Areas commonly activated during stop and shift trials relative to go trials in the complex version of the task from experiment 1, overlaid on the MNI template brain. (b) Areas significantly activated during stop trials relative to go trials in the simple version of the task, overlaid on the MNI template brain. All clusters are significant at P < 0.05 corrected for FDR and contain at least 20 voxels.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. fMRI results from experiment 1. Areas showing significantly greater activation during stop trials relative to shift trials (a) and during shift trials relative to stop trials (b), overlaid on the MNI template brain. All clusters are significant at P < 0.05 corrected for FDR and contain at least 20 voxels. Graphs display mean percent signal change (PSC) across all subjects for go, stop, and shift trials extracted from the right inferior frontal gyrus (top graph) and left inferior parietal lobe (bottom graph). Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
Figure 3. fMRI results from experiment 1. Areas showing significantly greater activation during stop trials relative to shift trials (a) and during shift trials relative to stop trials (b), overlaid on the MNI template brain. All clusters are significant at P < 0.05 corrected for FDR and contain at least 20 voxels. Graphs display mean percent signal change (PSC) across all subjects for go, stop, and shift trials extracted from the right inferior frontal gyrus (top graph) and left inferior parietal lobe (bottom graph). Error bars represent standard error of the mean.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. fMRI results from experiment 2. Areas showing significantly greater activation during double response trials relative to stop trials, overlaid on the MNI template brain. All clusters are significant at P < 0.05 corrected for FDR and contain at least 20 voxels.
Figure 4. fMRI results from experiment 2. Areas showing significantly greater activation during double response trials relative to stop trials, overlaid on the MNI template brain. All clusters are significant at P < 0.05 corrected for FDR and contain at least 20 voxels.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 2009, Biological psychiatry, 67, 919
  2. 2001, 30, 319
  3. Kawashima, 1996, Brain research, 728, 79
  4. 2001, 13, 250

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–270 of 270

Metadata

Authors
Dodds, C. M., Morein-Zamir, S., & Robbins, T. W.
Affiliations
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Dodds, C. M.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2010-10-05
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
1155-1165
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2101475053
Cited by
270
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (089589/Z/09/Z, 089589, 093875)
  • Medical Research Council (089589/Z/09/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
response inhibition, attentional control, response control, right inferior frontal cortex, right insula, frontoparietal network, go/no-go task, top-down control, goal-directed behavior, cognitive flexibility
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neural Inhibition, Parietal Lobe, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult, 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