Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 136 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people

Open access
Luijten, Maartje, Machielsen, Marise, Veltman, Dick, Hester, Robert, de Haan, Lieuwe, Franken, Ingmar·2014·Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several current theories emphasize the role of cognitive control in addiction. The present review evaluates neural deficits in the domains of inhibitory control and error processing in individuals with substance dependence and in those showing excessive addiction-like behaviours. The combined evaluation of event-related potential (ERP) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) findings in the present review offers unique information on neural deficits in addicted individuals. METHODS: We selected 19 ERP and 22 fMRI studies using stop-signal, go/no-go or Flanker paradigms based on a search of PubMed and Embase. RESULTS: The most consistent findings in addicted individuals relative to healthy controls were lower N2, error-related negativity and error positivity amplitudes as well as hypoactivation in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), inferior frontal gyrus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These neural deficits, however, were not always associated with impaired task performance. With regard to behavioural addictions, some evidence has been found for similar neural deficits; however, studies are scarce and results are not yet conclusive. Differences among the major classes of substances of abuse were identified and involve stronger neural responses to errors in individuals with alcohol dependence versus weaker neural responses to errors in other substance-dependent populations. LIMITATIONS: Task design and analysis techniques vary across studies, thereby reducing comparability among studies and the potential of clinical use of these measures. CONCLUSION: Current addiction theories were supported by identifying consistent abnormalities in prefrontal brain function in individuals with addiction. An integrative model is proposed, suggesting that neural deficits in the dorsal ACC may constitute a hallmark neurocognitive deficit under lying addictive behaviours, such as loss of control.

Overview

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 · 10.1503/jpn.130052

Cites

136 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 136 references

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Luijten, M., Machielsen, M., Veltman, D., Hester, R., de Haan, L., & Franken, I.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience
Published
2014-05-01
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
149-169
ISSN
1180-4882 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1602290488
Cited by
356
References
136
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1503/jpn.130052
The paper
Luijten, M., Machielsen, M., Veltman, D., Hester, R., de Haan, L., & Franken, I. (2014). Systematic review of ERP and fMRI studies investigating inhibitory control and error processing in people. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.130052

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.