Cited by 312Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

BOLD correlates of trial-by-trial reaction time variability in gray and white matter: a multi-study fMRI analysis

Open access
Yarkoni, Tal, Barch, Deanna M., Gray, Jeremy R., Conturo, Thomas E., Braver, Todd S.·2009·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reaction time (RT) is one of the most widely used measures of performance in experimental psychology, yet relatively few fMRI studies have included trial-by-trial differences in RT as a predictor variable in their analyses. Using a multi-study approach, we investigated whether there are brain regions that show a general relationship between trial-by-trial RT variability and activation across a range of cognitive tasks. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The relation between trial-by-trial differences in RT and brain activation was modeled in five different fMRI datasets spanning a range of experimental tasks and stimulus modalities. Three main findings were identified. First, in a widely distributed set of gray and white matter regions, activation was delayed on trials with long RTs relative to short RTs, suggesting delayed initiation of underlying physiological processes. Second, in lateral and medial frontal regions, activation showed a "time-on-task" effect, increasing linearly as a function of RT. Finally, RT variability reliably modulated the BOLD signal not only in gray matter but also in diffuse regions of white matter. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The results highlight the importance of modeling trial-by-trial RT in fMRI analyses and raise the possibility that RT variability may provide a powerful probe for investigating the previously elusive white matter BOLD signal.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0004257

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • The involvement of these frontal regions in pain and emotion likely reflected their much more general role in cognition rather than pain- or emotion-specific process.

    “Thus, the fact that these regions showed involvement in pain and emotion likely reflected their much more general role in cognition (e.g., sustained attention or goal-directed processing22,23) rather than pain- or emotion-specific process.”
  • In pain and emotion, frontal regions broadly implicated in goal-directed cognition showed consistent activation in the forward analysis but were relatively non-selective in the reverse analysis.

    “In both domains, frontal regions broadly implicated in goal-directed cognition21-23 showed consistent activation in the forward analysis, but were relatively non-selective in the reverse analysis (Fig. 2).”
  • Higher reaction time variability correlates with higher levels of frontal activation during cognitive tasks, specifically in middle frontal regions, medial frontal cortex, frontal operculum, lateral and anterior prefrontal cortex, and rostral supplementary motor area.

    “A consistent trend has emerged whereby higher RTV correlates with higher levels of frontal activation during tasks [36,62,63], specifically, in the middle frontal regions [36], the medial frontal cortex, frontal operculum, lateral and anterior prefrontal cortex [63], and rostral supplementary motor area [62].”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [63]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yarkoni, T., Barch, D. M., Gray, J. R., Conturo, T. E., & Braver, T. S.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Yarkoni, Tal
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2009-01-23
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
e4257
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080654645
Cited by
312
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 21
FWCI
7.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r37mh066031-16)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-71616, P50MH071616, R01MH066088, R01MH066031, R01MH066078, MH 066031, MH066088)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS039538, NS39538)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
reaction time variability, BOLD signal, time-on-task effects, frontal cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Schizophrenia, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results

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