Cited by 75Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

A simultaneous modulation of reactive and proactive inhibition processes by anodal tDCS on the right inferior frontal cortex

Open access
Cunillera, Toni, Fuentemilla, Lluís, Brignani, Debora, Cucurell, David, Miniussi, Carlo·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Proactive and reactive inhibitory processes are a fundamental part of executive functions, allowing a person to stop inappropriate responses when necessary and to adjust performance in in a long term in accordance to the goals of a task. In the current study, we manipulate, in a single task, both reactive and proactive inhibition mechanisms, and we investigate the within-subjects effect of increasing, by means of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), the involvement of the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC). Our results show a simultaneous enhancement of these two cognitive mechanisms when modulating the neural activity of rIFC. Thus, the application of anodal tDCS increased reaction times on Go trials, indicating a possible increase in proactive inhibition. Concurrently, the stop-signal reaction time, as a covert index of the inhibitory process, was reduced, demonstrating an improvement in reactive inhibition. In summary, the current pattern of results validates the engagement of the rIFC in these two forms of inhibitory processes, proactive and reactive inhibition and it provides evidence that both processes can operate concurrently in the brain.

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.0113537

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • In healthy adults, tDCS over rIFC combined with inhibition training significantly improved inhibition performance in a Stop task relative to sham tDCS and to inhibition training alone.

    “In healthy adults, for example, tDCS over rIFC combined with inhibition training significantly improved inhibition performance in a Stop task relative to sham tDCS (Cunillera et al., 2014) and to inhibition training alone (Ditye et al., 2012).”

    From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Cunillera et al., 2014

    The Results report significantly better stopping in the anodal than the sham tDCS session, and the Discussion reports a reduced stop-signal reaction time under stimulation. The Procedure describes practice to familiarize participants with the task, not an inhibition-training intervention. The comparison with training alone is cited to Ditye et al., not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2014) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on. Trends Cogn Sci 18: 177– 185. 24440116

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunillera, T., Fuentemilla, L., Brignani, D., Cucurell, D., & Miniussi, C.
Affiliations
  • Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES)
  • Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli (IT)
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-11-26
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
e113537
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028021018
Cited by
75
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
proactive inhibition, reactive inhibition, anodal tDCS, right inferior frontal cortex, executive function, stop-signal reaction time, go/no-go task, inhibitory control
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Male, Proactive Inhibition, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reactive Inhibition, Young Adult, Executive Function, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

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