Cited by 86Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and Testing

Toward a taxonomy of attention shifting: Individual differences in fMRI during multiple shift types

Open access
WAGER, T. D., JONIDES, J., SMITH, E. E., NICHOLS, T. E.·2005·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Although task switching is often considered one of the fundamental abilities underlying executive functioning and general intelligence, there is little evidence that switching is a unitary construct and little evidence regarding the relationship between brain activity and switching performance. We examined individual differences in multiple types of attention shifting in order to determine whether behavioral performance and fMRI activity are correlated across different types of shifting. The participants (n = 39) switched between objects and attributes both when stimuli were perceptually available (external) and when stimuli were stored in memory (internal). We found that there were more switch-related activations in many regions associated with executive control--including the dorsolateral and medial prefrontal and parietal cortices--when behavioral switch costs were higher (poor performance). Conversely, activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and the rostral anterior cingulate was consistently correlated with good performance, suggesting a general role for these areas in efficient attention shifting. We discuss these findings in terms of a model of cognitive-emotional interaction in attention shifting, in which reward-related signals in the VMPFC guide efficient selection of tasks in the lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices.

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 · 10.3758/cabn.5.2.127

Cites

85 of 85 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 typically developing adults, good and poor performance on a cognitive flexibility task were linked to activation of different neural circuits (ventral MPFC and rostral ACC versus DLPFC, MPFC and parietal cortex).

    “For example, Wager and colleagues [48] reported that in typically developing adults, good and poor performance on a cognitive flexibility task were associated with activation of different neural circuits (ventral medial prefrontal cortex [MPFC] and rostral anterior cingulate cortex [ACC], and dorsolateral PFC [DLPFC], MPFC and parietal cortex, respectively).”

    From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [48]

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

4 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (1997). Spatial transformation of im- ages. In R. S. J. Frackowiak, K. J. Friston, C. D. Frith, R. J. Dolan, & J.C. Mazziotta (Eds.), Human brain function (pp. 43-59). San Diego: Academic Press.
  2. Meyer, D. E., &. Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of ex- ecutive cognitive processes and multiple-task perfomance: Pt. 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
  3. Rogers, R.D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch be- tween simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WAGER, T. D., JONIDES, J., SMITH, E. E., & NICHOLS, T. E.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
WAGER, T. D.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2005-06-01
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
127-143
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2166896000
Cited by
86
References
89
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
attentional shift, task switching, individual differences, executive function, switch costs, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, cognitive-emotional interaction, reward signals
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Classification, Cues, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Individuality, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Statistics as Topic, 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