Cited by 281Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Abilities and Testing

Functional anatomical correlates of controlled and automatic processing

Jansma, Johan Martijn, Ramsey, Nick F., Slagter, Heleen A., Kahn, Rene S.·2001·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Behavioral studies have shown that consistent practice of a cognitive task can increase the speed of performance and reduce variability of responses and error rate, reflecting a shift from controlled to automatic processing. This study examines how the shift from controlled to automatic processing changes brain activity. A verbal Sternberg task was used with continuously changing targets (novel task, NT) and with constant, practiced targets (practiced task, PT). NT and PT were presented in a blocked design and contrasted to a choice reaction time (RT) control task (CT) to isolate working memory (WM)-related activity. The three-dimensional (3-D) PRESTO functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sequence was used to measure hemodynamic responses. Behavioral data revealed that task processing became automated after practice, as responses were faster, less variable, and more accurate. This was accompanied specifically by a decrease in activation in regions related to WM (bilateral but predominantly left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), right superior frontal cortex (SFC), and right frontopolar area) and the supplementary motor area. Results showed no evidence for a shift of foci of activity within or across regions of the brain. The findings have theoretical implications for understanding the functional anatomical substrates of automatic and controlled processing, indicating that these types of information processing have the same functional anatomical substrate, but differ in efficiency. In addition, there are practical implications for interpreting activity as a measure for task performance, such as in patient studies. Whereas reduced activity can reflect poor performance if a task is not sensitive to practice effects, it can reflect good performance if a task is sensitive to practice effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/08989290152541403

Cites

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?

  • Depending on the task, neuroimaging studies have reported a general decrease in cortical activity, increases in cortical activity, or a more complex redistribution where activity increases in some areas and decreases in others during practice.

    “Depending on the task, some studies have reported a general decrease in cortical activity [52–55], a few have reported increases [56–59], and some have reported a more complex redistribution where activity increases in some areas and decreases in others [60–62].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 281

Authors
Jansma, J. M., Ramsey, N. F., Slagter, H. A., & Kahn, R. S.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • University Medical Center, Utrecht
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2001-08
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
730-743
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2127587466
Cited by
281
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 18
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
controlled processing, automatic processing, practice effects, working memory, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, supplementary motor area, frontopolar cortex, superior frontal cortex, task automation, hemodynamic response, Sternberg task, choice reaction time
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Processes, Motor Cortex, Verbal Learning, Prefrontal Cortex

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