Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging.
Open accessAbstract
It is widely acknowledged that the prefrontal cortex plays a major role in cognitive control processes. One important experimental paradigm for investigating such higher order cognitive control is the task-switching paradigm. This paradigm investigates the ability to switch flexibly between different task situations. In this context, it has been found that participants are able to anticipatorily prepare an upcoming task. This ability has been assumed to reflect endogenous cognitive control. However, it is difficult to isolate task preparation process from task execution using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In the present study, we introduce a new experimental manipulation to investigate task preparation with fMRI. By manipulating the number of times a task was prepared, we could demonstrate that the left inferior frontal junction (IFJ) area (near the junction of inferior frontal sulcus and inferior precentral sulcus), the right inferior frontal gyrus, and the right intraparietal sulcus are involved in task preparation. By manipulating the cue-task mapping, we could further show that this activation is not related to cue encoding but to the updating of the relevant task representation. Based on these and previous results, we assume that the IFJ area constitutes a functionally separable division of the lateral prefrontal cortex. Finally, our data suggest that task preparation does not differ for switch and repetition trials in paradigms with a high proportion of switch trials, casting doubt on the assumption that an independent task set reconfiguration process takes place in the preparation interval.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In contrast to earlier observations, here we identified two new areas instead of one, which had been hypothesized on the basis of functional imaging experiments.
“In contrast to earlier observations, however, here we identified two new areas instead of one, which had been hypothesized on the basis of functional imaging experiments, for example during task switching [56],[58].”
From Broca's Region: Novel Organizational Principles and Multiple Receptor Mapping (2010) · cites this paper as [58]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 302
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
- Talairach, P., & Tournoux, J. (1988). A stereotactic coplanar atlas of the human brain. Stuttgart: Thieme.
- Authors
- Brass, M., & Cramon, D. Y. V.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- ORCID
- Brass, Marcel
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2004-05-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 609-620
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2159118837
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 12.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Max-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften
- 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 Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- task preparation, task switching, cognitive control, task-set reconfiguration, prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal junction, inferior frontal gyrus, intraparietal sulcus
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cues, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, 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
