Cited by 798Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Interference resolution: Insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks

Open access
NEE, D. E., WAGER, T. D., JONIDES, J.·2007·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

A quantitative meta-analysis was performed on 47 neuroimaging studies involving tasks purported to require the resolution of interference. The tasks included the Stroop, flanker, go/no-go, stimulus-response compatibility, Simon, and stop signal tasks. Peak density-based analyses of these combined tasks reveal that the anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, posterior parietal cortex, and anterior insula may be important sites for the detection and/or resolution of interference. Individual task analyses reveal differential patterns of activation among the tasks. We propose that the drawing of distinctions among the processing stages at which interference may be resolved may explain regional activation differences. Our analyses suggest that resolution processes acting upon stimulus encoding, response selection, and response execution may recruit different neural regions.

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.7.1.1

Cites

91 of 91 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?

  • Interference inhibition, action restraint, and action cancelation are all associated with activation of the IFG, anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), pre-SMA, and parietal regions.

    “Interference inhibition, action restraint and action cancelation are all associated with activation of the IFG, anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), pre-SMA, and parietal regions (Wager et al., 2005; Nee et al., 2007; Sebastian et al., 2013b).”

    From Response Inhibition and Interference Control in Obsessive–Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (2014) · cites this paper as Nee et al., 2007

    The Conclusions identify IFG, DLPFC, ACC and parietal regions in a network for interference resolution, while the Go/No-Go and Stop Signal section links response restraint particularly to the right IFG. The paper does not establish that every listed region, including the anterior insula and pre-SMA, is activated across all three forms of inhibition; it says there were too few stop-signal studies to analyze that task separately. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Domain-general inhibitory systems operate across multiple tasks and have been identified in dorsal frontoparietal cortices.

    “Domaingeneral inhibitory systems, which operate across multiple tasks, have been identified in dorsal frontoparietal cortices (Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2014;Hazeltine, Poldrack, & Gabrieli, 2007;Nee, Wager, & Jonides, 2007;Wager et al., 2005;Bunge, Hazeltine, Scanlon, Rosen, & Gabrieli, 2002).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Nee, Wager, & Jonides, 2007

    The Results report DLPFC and posterior parietal clusters in an analysis combining multiple interference-resolution tasks. But the Conclusions say this network *may* underlie conflict resolution, and the paper proposes different mechanisms for different processing stages. It does not establish a domain-general inhibitory system as a settled finding. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Right IFC/insula is a key region of cognitive control.

    “The area of increased activation, i.e., right IFC, bordering superior temporal lobe and reaching into insula, is a key region of cognitive control, as demonstrated by meta-analyses of fMRI studies of motor, interference inhibition, and switching 43, 44, 45, 46, transcranial magnetic stimulation 47, 48, 49, and lesion studies (50).”

    From Effects of stimulants on brain function in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Go/no-go section reports a right frontal activation cluster extending into the IFG and insula, and the Conclusions identify the right IFG as important during response execution. But the Flanker section says the insula’s role in cognitive tasks remains unclear. The paper therefore supports the right IFG’s role in interference resolution, not an equally established role for the insula across cognitive control. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Paradigms such as the Stroop, Flanker, Simon, stimulus response compatibility (SRC), antisaccade, stop signal, and Go/NoGo tasks are commonly regarded as involving inhibitory action control and are commonly used to investigate response inhibition mechanisms.

    “Paradigms such as the stroop, Flanker, Simon, stimulus response compatibility (SRC), antisaccade tasks, stop signal, and Go/NoGo tasks, which require a response to a target stimulus among irrelevant/distracting stimuli, are commonly regarded as paradigms that involve inhibitory action control (Nigg 2000) and are commonly used for the investigation of response inhibition mechanisms (Nee et al. 2007”
  • The experimental paradigms classified as evoking interference resolution were those that required conflict resolution and inhibition of response tendencies for successful responding.

    “In this meta-analysis, the experimental paradigms classified as evoking interference resolution were those that required conflict resolution and inhibition of response tendencies for successful responding (Nee et al. 2007).”

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
NEE, D. E., WAGER, T. D., & JONIDES, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2007-03-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
1-17
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W1999405675
Cited by
798
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 48
FWCI
2.09
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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
interference resolution, cognitive control, Stroop task, flanker task, go/no-go task, stimulus-response compatibility, Simon task, stop-signal task, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, posterior parietal cortex, anterior insula, response selection, stimulus encoding, response execution, neuronal activation
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cortical Synchronization, Discrimination, Psychological, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Neural Inhibition, Perceptual Masking

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