Endogenous and Stimulus-driven Mechanisms of Task Control
Abstract
While cognitive processes can be prepared to carry out pre-specified tasks, they must be sufficiently flexible to respond to new contingencies. We propose that this flexibility is achieved through the interaction of two sets of regions in the human brain. One set is concerned with the endogenous control of tasks and primarily involves dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, intraparietal sulcus (IPs), and frontal eye field (FEF). These regions are active during task preparation, generating signals for selecting task-relevant stimuli and linking them to responses, and maintain these signals during task performance. The other set is recruited by behaviorally important stimuli and involves the temporal–parietal junction (TPJ) and prefrontal cortex.
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?
A functional interaction between the dorsal and ventral attention systems has been proposed such that task-relevant signals from the dorsal system filter stimulus-driven signals in the ventral system, whereas stimulus-driven circuit-breaking signals from the ventral system provide an interrupt to the dorsal system, reorienting it toward salient stimuli.
“A functional interaction between the dorsal and ventral system has been proposed such that task-relevant signals from the dorsal system ''filter'' stimulus-driven signals in the ventral system, whereas stimulus-driven ''circuit-breaking'' signals from the ventral system provide an interrupt to the dorsal system, reorienting it toward salient stimuli (4,21).”
From Spontaneous neuronal activity distinguishes human dorsal and ventral attention systems (2006) · cites this paper as [21]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spontaneous neuronal activity distinguishes human dorsal and ventral attention systems
Fox, M. D., Corbetta, M., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0604187103 · Cited by 2,101 · see citing works
Self-citationAttentional Functions of Parietal and Frontal Cortex
Peers, P. V., Ludwig, C. J. H., Rorden, C., Cusack, R., Bonfiglioli, C., Bundesen, C., Driver, J., Antoun, N. M., & Duncan, J. (2005) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi029 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Raz, A., Lamar, M., Buhle, J. T., Kane, M. J., & Peterson, B. S. (2007) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.2007.10401611 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Conceptual Framework for Process-Based Speech Quality Assessment
Uhrig, S. (2025) · T-labs series in telecommunication services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77646-5_4
Uhrig, S. (2025) · T-labs series in telecommunication services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77646-5_3
- Authors
- Shulman, G. L., & Corbetta, M.
- Venue
- Functional Neuroimaging of Visual Cognition
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2004-03-11
- Pages
- 345-362
- OpenAlex
- W4388321160
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- task control, endogenous control, cognitive flexibility, task preparation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, intraparietal sulcus, frontal eye field, temporoparietal junction, stimulus selection, response selection, working memory maintenance
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
