Cited by 362Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Dissociable Roles of Right Inferior Frontal Cortex and Anterior Insula in Inhibitory Control: Evidence from Intrinsic and Task-Related Functional Parcellation, Connectivity, and Response Profile Analyses across Multiple Datasets

Open access
Cai, Weidong, Ryali, Srikanth, Chen, Tianwen, Li, Chiang-Shan R., Menon, Vinod·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) and the right anterior insula (rAI) have been implicated consistently in inhibitory control, but their differential roles are poorly understood. Here we use multiple quantitative techniques to dissociate the functional organization and roles of the rAI and rIFC. We first conducted a meta-analysis of 70 published inhibitory control studies to generate a commonly activated right fronto-opercular cortex volume of interest (VOI). We then segmented this VOI using two types of features: (1) intrinsic brain activity; and (2) stop-signal task-evoked hemodynamic response profiles. In both cases, segmentation algorithms identified two stable and distinct clusters encompassing the rAI and rIFC. The rAI and rIFC clusters exhibited several distinct functional characteristics. First, the rAI showed stronger intrinsic and task-evoked functional connectivity with the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas the rIFC had stronger intrinsic and task-evoked functional connectivity with dorsomedial prefrontal and lateral fronto-parietal cortices. Second, the rAI showed greater activation than the rIFC during Unsuccessful, but not Successful, Stop trials, and multivoxel response profiles in the rAI, but not the rIFC, accurately differentiated between Successful and Unsuccessful Stop trials. Third, activation in the rIFC, but not rAI, predicted individual differences in inhibitory control abilities. Crucially, these findings were replicated in two independent cohorts of human participants. Together, our findings provide novel quantitative evidence for the dissociable roles of the rAI and rIFC in inhibitory control. We suggest that the rAI is particularly important for detecting behaviorally salient events, whereas the rIFC is more involved in implementing inhibitory control.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.3048-14.2014

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • Both insula and dACC are components of the SN, but they subserve different functions, with insula more related to internal somatic function and monitoring task performance, while the dACC is

    “However, while both insula and dACC are components of the SN, they subserve different functions, with insula more related to internal somatic function and monitoring task performance (Eckert et al. 2009;Menon and Uddin 2010;Cai et al. 2014), while the dACC is”

    From Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis (2016) · cites this paper as Cai et al. 2014

    In “Intrinsic and task-evoked responses” (page not provided), the paper identifies the anterior insula and ACC as salience-network nodes involved in detecting events such as stop signals and errors. Its response-profile analysis links the right anterior insula to stop-trial outcomes, but it does not establish the claimed functional distinction between the insula and dACC. The “Meta-analysis of 70 published inhibitory control tasks” section associates interoception with other insular subdivisions, not the anterior-dorsal subdivision studied here. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The insula is involved in processing body control and experience, emotion, empathy, and time through its extensive connections to cortical and subcortical limbic structures.

    “the insula is involved in the processing of body control and experience, emotion, empathy, and time through its extensive connections to cortical and subcortical limbic structures (Menon and Uddin 2010;Cai et al. 2014).”

    From Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis (2016) · cites this paper as Cai et al. 2014

    The meta-analysis section says that anterior-ventral and posterior insular subdivisions have been implicated in affective and interoceptive processes, which partly supports the references to emotion and bodily experience. The intrinsic functional connectivity section reports connections between the right anterior insula and several cortical and subcortical regions. Neither passage supports empathy or time processing, nor establishes that the listed functions arise through connections to limbic structures. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The right anterior insula has been proposed to represent a hub that controls brain activity across different tasks and stimulus modalities to initiate and adjust cognitive control mechanisms.

    “The right anterior insula has been proposed to represent a hub that controls brain activity across different tasks and stimulus modalities to initiate and adjust cognitive control mechanisms (Cai et al. 2014).”

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
Cai, W., Ryali, S., Chen, T., Li, C.-S. R., & Menon, V.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2014-10-29
Volume
34
Issue
44
Pages
14652-14667
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2060881658
Cited by
362
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 1
FWCI
15.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA021449, R01AA021449)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA026990, DA023248, R01DA023248, K02DA026990)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (RF1NS086085, NS071221, R21NS071221, NS086085, R01NS086085)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K25HD074652)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
inhibitory control, right inferior frontal cortex, right anterior insula, stop-signal task, functional parcellation, intrinsic brain activity, functional connectivity, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, individual differences, saliency detection
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Executive Function

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