NIH Public Access: Three Key Regions For Supervisory Attentional Control: Evidence From Neuroimaging Meta-Analyses

NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 January 01.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015 January ; 0: 22–34. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.11.003.
Three key regions for supervisory attentional control: Evidence

from neuroimaging meta-analyses
Edna C. Cieslika,b,*, Veronika I. Muellera,b, Claudia R. Eickhoffb,c, Robert Langnera,b, and
Simon B. Eickhoffa,b
aInstituteof Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-
University, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
bInstitute
of Neuroscience and Medicine, INM-1, Research Centre Jülich, Leo-Brandt-Straße,
52428 Jülich, Germany
cDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, RWTH Aachen, University,
Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
Abstract
The supervisory attentional system has been proposed to mediate non-routine, goal-oriented
behaviour by guiding the selection and maintenance of the goal-relevant task schema. Here, we
aimed to delineate the brain regions that mediate these high-level control processes via
neuroimaging meta-analysis. In particular, we investigated the core neural correlates of a wide
range of tasks requiring supervisory control for the suppression of a routine action in favour of
another, non-routine one. Our sample comprised n = 173 experiments employing go/no-go, stop-
signal, Stroop or spatial interference tasks. Consistent convergence across all four paradigm
classes was restricted to right anterior insula and inferior frontal junction, with anterior
midcingulate cortex and pre-supplementary motor area being consistently involved in all but the
go/no-go task. Taken together with lesion studies in patients, our findings suggest that the
controlled activation and maintenance of adequate task schemata relies, across paradigms, on a
right-dominant midcingulo-insular-inferior frontal core network. This also implies that the role of
other prefrontal and parietal regions may be less domain-general than previously thought.
Keywords
supervisory attentional system; meta-analysis; go/no-go; stop signal; Stroop; spatial interference;
fMRI; PET
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Edna C. Cieslik, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Research Centre Jülich,
D- 52425 Jülich, Germany, Phone: +49 2461 61-4564, Fax: +49 2461 61-2990, e.cieslik@fz-juelich.de.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our
customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of
the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Cieslik et al. Page 2
1. Introduction
Flexible, adaptive behavior requires continuous balancing between the initiation and
inhibition of actions, such as when a prepotent response has to be suppressed in favour of a

contextually appropriate one. Cognitive control of action is particularly important in the
presence of a changing environment or the up-dating of goals and intentions (cf. Boehler et
al., 2010; Schachar et al., 2007; Miller and Cohen, 2001). Norman and Shallice (Norman,
1986) developed a theoretical framework for the implementation of goal-directed, non-
routine behaviour against competing pre-dominant, routine responding. According to this
framework, automatic or routine actions are based on the activation and implementation of a
task schema that represents a learned sequence of input–output rules. Schemata can be
activated by triggers, such as sensory input or the outcome of other schemata (Stuss et al.,
1995). During well-learned routine behaviours, competition between schemata is controlled
by lateral inhibition mechanisms, termed “contention scheduling.” However, the
coordination of schemata with higher-level, overarching goals requires the additional
employment of a “supervisory attentional system” (SAS), which exerts top-down control by
deactivating certain schemata and activating others in the service of higher-order goals (cf.
Alexander and Brown, 2010). The implementation of non-routine behaviour against
predominant but inadequate response tendencies specifically relies on different sub-

processes of the SAS that have been anatomically localized in the frontal cortex. In
particular, lesion studies revealed a crucial role of the dorsomedial frontal cortex for
energization, the process of initiating and sustaining the currently relevant task schema (cf.
Stuss and Alexander, 2007). This sub-process would become necessary whenever a task
schema needs to be activated that is not triggered automatically by perceptual and
motivational input (cf. Shallice et al., 2008b). In contrast, patients with lesions in the left
lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) show deficits in task-setting, which sets the specific
stimulus–response contingencies and is specifically required in the initial stages of learning
a task (Shallice et al., 2008a; Shallice et al., 2008b). Right lateral PFC, on the other hand,
has been associated with monitoring processes, such as continuously checking the
appropriateness of the behavioural output (Stuss, 2006, 2011).
Frequently used tasks that require participants to suppress a predominant response in favour
of an appropriate, context-dependent one comprise the Stroop, flanker, Simon, stimulus–
response compatibility (SRC), and antisaccade tasks as well as stop-signal and go/no-go
tasks (cf. Diamond, 2013; Nee et al., 2007; Sebastian et al., 2013). All these tasks have very
often been conceptualized as paradigms that tax inhibitory action control. Poor performance
in these tasks has hence been commonly explained as a prefrontally mediated deficit in
inhibiting the inappropriate response. However, recent evidence points to a more general
role of the PFC in these tasks, being crucial for the active maintenance of task goals as well
as the activation of the appropriate behavioural alternative (Everling and Johnston, 2013;
Munakata et al., 2011).
In the present study, we aimed at isolating and functionally characterizing brain regions that
are essential for the coordination between the inhibition of a predominant, inappropriate
response and the activation of the goal-dependent one. We used coordinate-based activation
likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analyses (Eickhoff et al., 2012; Eickhoff et al., 2009;
Turkeltaub et al., 2002; Turkeltaub et al., 2012) to integrate results from a diverse range of
neuroimaging studies investigating the stop-signal, go/no-go, Stroop, flanker, SRC,
antisaccade, and Simon tasks. All of these paradigms require cognitive control over a
predominant response tendency and the context-dependent initiation of an appropriate

behavioural alternative, that is, either to initiate an alternative, non-dominant response or not
respond at all.
In go/no-go and stop-signal tasks, an increased automatic tendency to initiate a particular

motor response is induced through a higher frequency of go trials, as compared with
inhibition (i.e. no-go or stop) trials. The resulting action bias then has to be suppressed when
presented with the inhibition signal during stop or no-go trials, respectively. While in the
go/no-go task participants have to withhold a prepotent but not-yet initiated motor response,
the stop-signal task requires cancelling an already initiated motor response (cf. Eagle et al.,
2008; Schachar et al., 2007). In the other tasks, which can be subsumed under the term
“incongruency tasks”, a given stimulus dimension interferes with relevant stimulus and/or
response information, thereby affecting responses to the relevant information. According to
the dimensional overlap model (Kornblum, 1990, 2002), overlap between a (irrelevant)
stimulus dimension and the response dimension results in an automatic translation of the
stimulus feature into a response code. During congruent trials, the automatically activated
response and the required one are one and the same. In contrast, during incongruent trials,
the required response differs from the automatically activated one, thereby leading to an
incongruency effect reflected in increased reaction times and error rates. Interestingly, it has
been shown that the use of spatial as opposed to non-spatial information may lead to larger
(in-)congruency effects in the context of some tasks. For example, Zeischka et al. (2010)
investigated the congruency effect in different versions of the flanker task and found
increased congruency effects when using arrows as stimuli, as compared to letters or
colours. One possible explanation for this finding may be that the use of spatial information
produces a simultaneous shift in both (perceptual) spatial attention and (motor) response
activation on the ipsilateral side (Cieslik et al., 2010; Notebaert et al., 2001; Stoffer and
Yakin, 1994).
Summarizing, we investigated four subcategories of cognitive action control. Action

withholding was assessed with the go/no-go task that requires participants to withhold a
prepotent but not yet initiated motor response. In contrast, the stop signal task investigates
inhibition of an already initiated motor response, which can hence be conceptualized as

action cancellation (cf. Eagle et al., 2008; Schachar et al., 2007). Interference control,
finally, was investigated by means of congruency tasks that require participants to solve
interference between competing response plans, by inhibiting the prepotent response and
concurrently initiating the context-appropriate one. The latter were further subdivided into
(non-spatial) Stroop versus spatial interference tasks (comprising Simon, SRC, antisaccade
and spatial flanker tasks).
In a first step, we tested which brain regions are consistently associated with the four
paradigm classes, that is, go/no-go, stop-signal, Stroop and spatial interference tasks. In a
second step, we aimed to reveal those regions that are consistently activated whenever the
task context requires inhibiting the predominant response and concurrently activating the
appropriate task goal for initiating the adequate behaviour. We therefore performed a
conjunction analysis across the thresholded ALE maps of all four task types. As all these
four paradigm classes require (i) the suppression of actions that are inappropriate in a given
context (ii) and the concurrent initiation of the context-appropriate behaviour, this approach
should reveal those regions that are critical for the regulatory processes mediated by the
SAS.
2. Methods
2.1 Paradigms included
For our meta-analysis, neuroimaging results on the neural correlates of seven different tasks
investigating cognitive control of actions were included, namely the Stroop, flanker, Simon,
SRC, antisaccade, go/no-go and stop-signal tasks.
Stroop task—In the (standard) colour-word Stroop task (Stroop, 1935), participants are
required to suppress a prepotent response, the reading of a word, in favour of a less
dominant one, the naming of the ink colour in which the word is written. There are three
possible types of trials: (i) congruent trials, in which the colour of the word matches the
word’s referent (e.g., the word “red” printed in red); (ii) incongruent trials, in which ink
colour and word differ (e.g., the word “blue” printed in red); and (iii) neutral trials, in which
the colour of the word and the word’s referent do not provide competing responses (e.g., a
series of “X”s printed in red). Other, less common variants such as the numerical Stroop
task, where participants have to identify which of two presented numbers is written in a
higher font size while ignoring the numerical size, were included as well. In contrast,
emotional versions of the Stroop task were not included as there is evidence from
behavioural and neuroimaging studies that interference arising from emotional distractors
may rely on different processes and neural correlates than interference from non-emotional
ones (e.g. Egner et al., 2008; Frings et al., 2010; McKenna and Sharma, 2004).
Flanker task—In the flanker task (Eriksen, 1974), participants are asked to identify and
respond to a central target stimulus, such as a letter or an arrow, and to ignore similar
distractor stimuli flanking the target. Participants show longer reaction times when the
flankers are associated with a different response than the target stimulus (incompatible trial),
as compared with trials in which the flankers and the target are associated with the same
response (compatible trials) (Eriksen, 1974; Miller, 1991).
Simon task—In the Simon task (Simon, 1990), participants have to respond to a non-
spatial stimulus dimension according to an arbitrary rule while ignoring the spatial
dimension of the stimulus. Typically, variously coloured stimuli are matched with different
responses (say, blue: left-hand response, yellow: right-hand response). When the blue
stimulus is presented in the right hemifield (incongruent condition), the irrelevant (but, due
to overlearned spatial S-R associations, still influential) spatial placement of the stimulus
automatically activates right-hand response codes and interferes with the actually required
(i.e., left-hand) response. This, in turn, leads to increased reaction times and error rates, as
compared with a spatially congruent condition.
Antisaccade task—In the antisaccade task (Hallett, 1978), participants are instructed to
fixate a central position and, after the presentation of a lateralized target stimulus, to perform
a saccadic eye-movement (antisaccade) to its mirror-symmetrical position. Participants
usually show increased reaction times and error rate when instructed to perform an
antisaccade compared to a prosaccade (eye-movement to the lateralized target).
SRC task—Here, participants are required to respond to a stimulus according to its spatial
dimension, with the spatial S-R mapping being either compatible or incompatible. A typical
example for a congruent mapping would be a left-sided motor response to a left-pointing
arrow or a left-lateralized stimulus, while in the incongruent condition, participants would
have to respond to these stimuli with their right hand. Incongruent S-R mappings lead to an
increase in reaction time and error rate (Fitts and Seeger, 1953).
Go/no-go task—The traditional go/no-go paradigm usually involves two different stimuli,
a “go” and a “no-go” stimulus, that are presented in a random sequence. Participants are
instructed to rapidly respond to go stimuli, while withholding the response to no-go stimuli.
The prepotency towards responding, rather than withholding, is usually achieved by having
more go than no-go stimuli in a given block of trials.
Stop-signal task—Here, participants are required to make speeded choice reactions to

different target stimuli such as letters. On some trials, a second (e.g. auditory) stimulus is
presented shortly after the target, instructing participants to cancel their (often already
initiated) response (Logan, 1997).
2.2. Selection criteria for the experiments included in the meta-analyses

Relevant neuroimaging experiments for the meta-analyses were obtained from literature
search in PubMed (www.pubmed.com) as well as reference tracing in these retrieved papers
and in review articles. Only results from whole-brain group analyses reported as coordinates
in a standard reference space (Talairach/Tournoux or Montreal Neurological Institute
(MNI)) were included, while results of region-of-interest (ROI) analyses were excluded.
Furthermore, only data from healthy adults were included, while data from children and
patients were excluded. When patient studies separately reported results from a healthy
control group, the results from the healthy group were included. Data from conditions with
pharmacological or non-invasive manipulations such as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

were excluded even if they reported a control group receiving only a placebo condition due
to possible anticipation effects that might influence behavioural output as well as underlying
neural responses. Moreover, single-subject reports as well as experiments investigating
between-group effects pertaining, for example, to handedness, sex, or genotype were
excluded. In the present meta-analyses, only contrasts reporting neural correlates of
increased demands on cognitive action control contrasted with an “active” control condition
were included. Experimental effects compared with a resting baseline and reverse contrasts
(i.e. “deactivations”), which are much less consistently reported in the literature, were not
considered. Consequently, in the stop-signal and go/no-go task, the critical contrast was
inhibition vs. go. However, some go/no-go experiments did not model go trials as separate
regressors but included them in the baseline; these experiments were also included as we
considered the “baseline” in these experiments an active control condition. In all other tasks,
the critical contrast was incongruent vs. congruent, with the Stroop, Simon and flanker tasks
also including some experiments contrasting incongruent with neutral conditions (see table
S1).
Based on these criteria, 62 experiments investigating the Stroop task, 32 experiments

investigating the go/no-go task, 24 experiments investigating the stop signal task, 19
experiments investigating the flanker task (with 11 of these using arrows as stimuli), 15
experiments investigating the Simon task, 11 experiments investigating the SRC task, and
10 experiments investigating the antisaccade task were identified as eligible for inclusion in
the meta-analysis. The Simon, flanker (only those 11 using arrows as stimuli), SRC and
antisaccade experiments were subsumed under the category “spatial interference task,”
given the relatively low number of available experiments for these tasks and, in particular,
their common focus on spatially based conflict (cf. Zeischka et al., 2010). To ensure that the
results in this mixed group of spatial conflict tasks was not driven by any particular
paradigm type, the number of experiments was matched by randomly selecting 10
experiments of every paradigm class. Differences in coordinate space (MNI vs. Talairach
space) were accounted for by transforming coordinates reported in Talairach space into MNI
coordinates using a linear transformation (Lancaster et al., 2007).
In summary, we investigated four different instances of cognitive action control: 1) action

withholding as assessed by the go/no-go task (n = 32), 2) action cancellation as assessed by
the stop signal task (n = 24), and 3) and 4) two forms of interference control, as assessed by
the Stroop task (n = 62) and by spatial conflict task (n = 40), respectively. Furthermore,
minimum conjunction analyses were performed as the key objective of the present study was
to isolate those regions that consistently mediate the coordination between the inhibition of a
predominant, inappropriate response and the activation of the goal-dependent, behavioural
alternative across different task contexts.
2.3 Activation Likelihood Estimation algorithm

All meta-analyses were performed using the revised ALE algorithm for coordinate-based
meta-analysis of neuroimaging results (Eickhoff et al., 2012; Eickhoff et al., 2009; Laird et
al., 2009a; Laird et al., 2009b; Turkeltaub et al., 2002) according to the standard procedures
of our institute (cf. Langner and Eickhoff, 2013; Rottschy et al., 2012). This algorithm aims
to identify areas showing a convergence of reported coordinates across experiments that is

higher than expected under the assumption of random spatial associations. The key idea
behind ALE is to treat the reported foci not as single points but rather as centres for 3-D
Gaussian probability distributions capturing the spatial uncertainty associated with each
focus. The width of these uncertainty functions was determined based on empirical data on
the between-subject and between-template variance, which represent the main components
of this uncertainty. Importantly, the applied algorithm weights the between-subject variance
by the number of examined subjects per study, accommodating the notion that larger sample
sizes should provide more reliable approximations of the ‘true’ activation effect and should
therefore be modelled by ‘narrower’ Gaussian distributions (Eickhoff et al., 2009).
The probabilities of all foci reported in a given experiment were then combined for each
voxel, resulting in a modelled activation (MA) map (Turkeltaub et al., 2012). Taking the
union across these MA maps yielded voxel-wise ALE scores describing the convergence of
results across experiments at each particular location of the brain. To distinguish ‘true’
convergence across studies from random convergence (i.e., noise), ALE scores were
compared to an empirical null-distribution reflecting a random spatial association between
experiments. Hereby, a random-effects inference is invoked, focussing on inference on the
above-chance convergence across studies, not clustering of foci within a particular study.
Computationally, deriving this null-hypothesis involved sampling a voxel at random from
each of the MA maps and taking the union of these values in the same manner as done for
the (spatially contingent) voxels in the true analysis, a process which can be solved
analytically (Eickhoff et al., 2012). The p-value of the “true” ALE was then given by the
proportion of equal or higher values obtained under the null-distribution. The resulting non-
parametric p-values for each meta-analysis were then thresholded at a cluster-level corrected
threshold of p < 0.05 (cluster-forming threshold at voxel level: p < 0.001, uncorrected) and
transformed into z-scores for display. Conjunction analyses were performed by using the
conservative minimum statistic (Nichols et al., 2005) to identify voxels where a significant
effect was present in all separate analyses.
All results were anatomically labelled by reference to probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps

of the human brain using the SPM Anatomy Toolbox (Eickhoff et al., 2007; Eickhoff et al.,
2005). Details on these cytoarchitectonic regions may be found in the following publications
on Broca’s region (Amunts et al., 1999), inferior parietal cortex (Caspers et al., 2008;
Caspers et al., 2006), superior parietal cortex and intraparietal sulcus (Choi et al., 2006;
Scheperjans et al., 2008a; Scheperjans et al., 2008b), motor cortex (Geyer et al., 1996), and
the thalamus (connectivity-based regions; Behrens et al., 2003).
3. Results
Meta-analysis of all included experiments
In a first step, we identified those brain regions that showed significant convergence across
all 173 experiments. This main-effect revealed consistently increased activity in a bilateral
frontoparietal network, consisting of anterior insula (aI) and adjacent inferior frontal gyrus
(IFG), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC), as well as
bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS) extending into superior parietal lobe (SPL). Moreover,
convergent activity was found in the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and in the left
inferior occipital gyrus as well as in the (pre)-supplementary motor area [(pre)SMA]
extending into the anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC). Subcortical activity was observed
in the right thalamus and the right caudate nucleus (Figure 1, Table S2).
Meta-analyses for the individual task types

Stroop task—Investigating consistent activation across the experiments using the Stroop
task revealed significantly convergent activity in a bilateral network consisting of aI
extending into IFG (pars orbitalis/triangularis), the intersection between posterior IFG and
the precentral gyrus, i.e., the inferior frontal junction (IFJ), as well as the intraparietal
sulcus, with a more wide-spread activity in the left hemisphere that extended into the SPL
and IPC. Moreover, significant convergence was found in the preSMA extending into
aMCC (Fig. 2A, Table S3). Furthermore, we ran a supplementary meta-analysis that only
included those 47 experiments investigating the verbal version, i.e. the colour-word Stroop
task. Even though this supplementary meta-analysis revealed slightly smaller cluster of
convergence, this additional analysis did not change the overall results, but moreover
showed significant convergence in the left inferior occipital gyrus (MNI coordinates: −48 /
−59 / −18) (Fig. S1).
Spatial interference task—Investigating consistent activation across the experiments

using spatial interference tasks revealed significant convergence of activity in a bilateral
dorsal frontoparietal network consisting of dPMC and the superior parietal cortices.
Moreover, significant convergence of activity was found in the right IFJ and adjacent IFG
(pars opercularis), right aI and the aMCC extending into preSMA (Figure 2B, Table S4).
Stop-Signal task—Performing a meta-analysis across experiments contrasting stop vs go

trials in the stop-signal tasks revealed consistent activation in bilateral aI extending into IFG
(pars opercularis), the aMCC, the preSMA and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC).
Moreover, right-lateralized activity was found in the IFJ, dPMC and TPJ. Subcortical
activity was found in bilateral thalamus (Figure 2C, Table S5).
Go/no-go task—Performing a meta-analysis across experiments contrasting no-go vs go

responses in the go/no-go task showed consistent activity in a right-lateralized frontal
network consisting of the DLPFC, the IFJ as well as the aI extending into the pars orbitalis
of IFG. Moreover, parietal activity was found in the IPS extending into adjacent IPC as well
as the SPL (Fig. 2D, Table S6).
Conjunction analyses
To isolate brain activity specifically related to supervisory attentional control, independent
of task specifics, we performed a minimum conjunction analysis across the thresholded ALE
maps of all four paradigm classes (cf. above). This analysis revealed significant convergence
in two clusters: the right aI and right inferior frontal junction (Figure 3, Table S7).
Subsequently, conjunction analyses were performed across the thresholded maps for all
combinations of three paradigm classes: (i) Stroop AND stop-signal AND spatial
interference tasks, (ii) Stroop AND go/no-go AND spatial interference tasks, (iii) go/no-go
AND stop-signal AND spatial interference tasks, and (iv) Stroop AND go/no-go AND stop-
signal tasks. Thereby it was found that right aI, right IFJ as well as the anterior mid-
cingulate cortex and the preSMA were consistently involved in the Stroop, spatial
interference and stop signal tasks (Figure 4, Table S7). All other conjunction analyses did
not reveal significant convergence of activity in any other region than the right aI and right
IFJ, i.e., the full conjunction reported above (Table S7).
Differences between the four task types were computed as well and are shown in the
Supplementary Material (Figure S2) as the focus of the present meta-analyses was to
delineate the core regions consistently recruited across facets of cognitive action control.
4. Discussion
We used coordinate-based ALE meta-analyses to analyze the neural correlates of cognitive
action control in different paradigms that all require the suppression of an inappropriate
action and the concurrent initiation and execution of the context-appropriate alternative. In
total, 173 experiments investigating go/no-go, stop-signal, Stroop and spatial interference
paradigms were included. While the main effect across all experiments, independent of task
type, revealed a broad bilateral frontoparietal network, the right aI and the right IFJ were the
only two regions that showed consistent involvement in all individual paradigm classes, as
revealed by a minimum conjunction. Moreover, the aMCC and the preSMA were conjointly
recruited by all but the go/no-go task. We hence suggest that the aI and IFJ in the right
hemisphere and the aMCC/preSMA play a pivotal role for the regulatory processes mediated
by the SAS, while other frontal and parietal regions are associated more specifically with
subcomponents of cognitive action control that are differentially engaged in the respective
paradigms.
4.1 Main effect of all included experiments

Performing a meta-analysis of all included experiments related to cognitive action control
revealed consistent activity in a bilateral frontoparietal network consisting of the aI and

adjacent IFG, the DLPFC, dPMC and the IPS extending into the SPL. Moreover, convergent
activity was found in the right TPJ and in the left inferior occipital gyrus as well as the
aMCC extending into (pre)SMA. Of note, the aMCC has often been labeled “dorsal anterior
cingulate cortex” in previous studies according to Brodmann’s well-known nomenclature.
However, as there is convincing evidence of a structurally and functionally distinct middle
cingulate cortex (cf. Palomero-Gallagher et al., 2009; Vogt, 2004, 2005), we will here use
the more precise term “aMCC” instead of the rather widely used but overly broad term
“(dorsal) anterior cingulate cortex.” With the exception of the right temporoparietal junction,
the present network closely resembles a network that has been found as the main effect of
working memory in a recently published meta-analysis study (Rottschy et al., 2012).
Another meta-analysis investigating sustained attention (Langner and Eickhoff, 2013) also
found consistent involvement in a very similar network, which however showed less
extended activity in the dPMC and IPS and was more lateralized to the right hemisphere. As
inhibition, working memory as well as sustained and selective attention are regarded as core
component factors underlying executive functions (Alvarez and Emory, 2006), this network
most likely represents a set of cortical regions that interact with each other during executive
control processes across a wide variety of tasks (cf. Müller et al., in press). Along the same
lines, a very similar set of regions has been shown to be engaged across a diversity of
cognitively demanding tasks and hypothesized to respond in a domain- and process-general
manner (Cole and Schneider, 2007; Duncan, 2010; Duncan and Owen, 2000; Fedorenko et
al., 2013).
4.2 Conjunction analyses

Conjunction analyses were performed to isolate those brain regions that are consistently
associated with the regulatory processes proposed to be mediated by the supervisory
attentional system (Norman, 1986; Stuss et al., 1995). All four paradigm classes required the
implementation of a non-dominant, context-dependent behaviour against a competing

behavioural alternative. Accurate performance in these tasks therefore requires performance
monitoring as well as energization of the relevant, nondominant task schema. These
processes have been proposed to be mediated by the SAS (Norman, 1986; Stuss et al.,
1995), but to date its underlying neural correlates have mainly been investigated using lesion
studies. These studies revealed a crucial role of the right lateral prefrontal cortex for
monitoring of ongoing performance, with exact location of lesion sites varying from the
right lateral to the inferior PFC. In contrast, energization has been strongly associated with
the posterior dorsomedial frontal cortex around Brodmann area 24, 9 and 6 (Stuss, 2006,
2011). However, lesion studies have a drawback: the mapping of functions to circumscribed
anatomical regions is rather vague. Our conjunction analysis now specifically revealed the
right IFJ and the right aI to be the only two regions showing consistent activity across all
four paradigm classes investigated. Moreover, all but the go/no-go task revealed consistent
involvement of the aMCC and preSMA. Thus, the present results indicate that the aI and IFJ
in the right hemisphere as well as the aMCC/preSMA play a central role in supervisory
attentional control.
The insula is a functionally heterogeneous region, hypothesized to exert an integrative role

between the homeostatic, affective and cognitive systems of the human brain (cf. Craig,
2010; Kurth et al., 2010; Medford and Critchley, 2010; Menon and Uddin, 2010). With
respect to its cognitive functions, Dosenbach and colleagues (Dosenbach et al., 2007;
Dosenbach et al., 2006) proposed that the aI together with the aMCC/preSMA forms a core
network for the implementation and stable maintenance of task sets. This view was based on
their finding that this network showed reliable start-cue and sustained activation across a
diversity of tasks. Recent studies using different methods support the assumption that
especially the right aI plays a critical monitoring role. For example, Sridharan et al. (2008)
found that the right aI plays a causal role in activating task-relevant regions while
concurrently deactivating other regions, such as the default mode network, that are
extraneous to the current task. It has hence been assumed that the right aI acts as an “outflow
hub” controlling activity in other brain regions across different tasks and stimulus modalities
to initiate and adjust cognitive control mechanisms (cf. Dosenbach et al., 2006; Sridharan et
al., 2008). In line with that, functional imaging studies revealed evidence for a specific
relation between aI activity and task performance. In particular, an fMRI study of Wager et
al. (2005) found a positive correlation of activity in the right aI with task performance across
three different tasks that were also investigated within the present meta-analyses (i.e.,
flanker, SRC, and go/no-go tasks). Bunge et al. (2002) also showed a positive correlation of
right aI activity with better task performance (i.e., less interference-related slowing of RTs)
in a spatial flanker task. Summarizing, the aI may thus monitor the activation of the relevant
task set and, if necessary, sent a control signal to other task-relevant regions, such as medial
prefrontal cortex as well as the parietal cortex to enable correct task performance in a
moment-to-moment manner (cf. Dosenbach et al., 2008; Holmes et al., 1998; Langner and
Eickhoff, 2013; Power and Petersen, 2013).
The right IFJ was the second region showing significant convergence of activity across all
four paradigm classes. This region is located at the junction of the inferior frontal sulcus and
the inferior precentral sulcus (cf. Derrfuss et al., 2005) and has been implicated in task
switching and set shifting paradigms but also in the Stroop or n-back task (Derrfuss et al.,
2005; Derrfuss et al., 2004). It has hence been discussed to mediate processes concerning the
updating of task representations and specification of general task goals (e.g. Brass et al.,
2005a; Brass et al., 2005b; Derrfuss et al., 2005; Derrfuss et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2011a).
While these studies have consistently shown involvement of particularly the left IFJ, the
present meta-analysis revealed consistent involvement of the right IFJ across task types. A
recent study by Zheng et al. (2011) found a region located very close to our right IFJ cluster
whose activity showed a significant positive correlation with participants´ performance in
two different tasks: it showed a positive correlation with the stop-signal reaction time in a
stop-signal task and a negative correlation with the false alarm rate, which described the
proportion of no-go trials on which participants failed to withhold their response in a go/no-
go task.
Even though several other studies have shown activity within the right IFJ during the go/no-
go, stop-signal or antisaccade tasks (Aron, 2011; Chikazoe et al., 2009a) as well, the right
IFJ has mainly been associated with the detection of changes in stimulus features as well as
the detection of infrequent but action-related events (Chikazoe et al., 2009a; Verbruggen et
al., 2010). Although the probabilities of inhibition and go stimuli are often unequal in stop-
signal and go/no-go tasks (i.e. inhibition trials are usually rarer), this does not necessarily
hold for the interference paradigms. Hence, we argue that the right IFJ may not be
selectively involved in the detection of infrequent events per se (see also Levy and Wagner,
2011). As the right IFJ was conjointly recruited across all tasks investigated, and participants
were always required to integrate a bottom-up stimulus with a non-dominant motor
response, we would rather suggest that the function of the right IFJ may go beyond simple
detection. Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis investigating vigilant attention (Langner and
Eickhoff, 2013) also found consistently stronger involvement in tasks with longer vigilant
attention maintenance in the IFJ. Hence, it seems that the IFJ, especially in the right
hemisphere, is associated with the continuous reactivating of the non-dominant but relevant
S-R mapping against the automatic but inadequate action that has to be inhibited, such as
responding to the word meaning in the Stroop task or responding to a left-sided stimulus
with the left hand in SRC or Simon tasks (cf. Brass et al., 2005a; Derrfuss et al., 2005). We,
therefore, propose that while the aI is associated with the monitoring and general
implementation of the relevant task set, the right IFJ is more specifically associated with the
continuous reactivation of the relevant task rule that links relevant stimulus features and
non-dominant responses in a task-specific manner.
Beside the IFJ and aI, two other regions were rather consistently associated with inhibiting
the predominant motor response and activating the context-dependent alternative: aMCC
and preSMA were conjointly involved in all but the go/no-go task. Both of these regions
have been found jointly involved in many tasks, which make a clear functional dissociation
rather difficult. The aMCC has been proposed to mediate the interaction between motor
intentions and motivational state (Paus, 2001). In line with this, a recent fMRI study
revealed the aMCC to be the key region for volitional action control as this region showed
increased activity for internal movement selection compared to reactive movements, with
even higher activity when participants could not only choose which hand to use but could
also choose the timing, i.e., when to perform the movement (Hoffstaedter et al., 2013).
Moreover, the aMCC has been related to performance monitoring by detecting conflicts in
information processing and – through interaction with other task-relevant regions – focusing
attentional resources on task-relevant information and adapting behavioural plans according

to task demands (for a review see (Botvinick et al., 2004)). The adjacent preSMA has been
more strongly associated with executive control of motor output, in particular response
inhibition as well as selecting the appropriate response between different response
alternatives (cf. Barber et al., 2013; Mostofsky and Simmonds, 2008; Nachev et al., 2008).
Electrophysiological recordings in non-human primates also demonstrated a specific
involvement of the preSMA in switching from an automatic to a controlled response (Isoda
and Hikosaka, 2007). Moreover, tracing studies revealed strong anatomical connectivity
with anterior premotor areas, area 24c in the cingulum, and the prefrontal cortex (Luppino et
al., 1993) supporting the hypothesis that the preSMA is involved in higher cognitive control
of motor behaviour. We therefore propose that differences between the aMCC and preSMA
are most likely related to the conceptual level of cognitive control: while the aMCC is
related to the detection of conflicting response plans on a higher cognitive level such as
discerning competing response plans, the preSMA is more strongly associated with
monitoring actual motor output by selecting the appropriate motor output (Nachev et al.,
2008). The role of the aMCC/preSMA would then correspond to what Stuss and colleagues
conceptualized as energization of the appropriate task schema (Stuss et al., 1995). That is,
whenever stimuli or the motivational conditions are not optimal for responding, energization
of lower-level systems by the posterior dorsomedial frontal cortex is needed (cf. Shallice et
al., 2008). This process would come into play whenever the non-dominant task schema, such
as responding incongruently in the Stroop task or initiating the stopping of an already started
motor response in the stop signal task, needs to be “energized”.
Importantly, we did not find the left lateral PFC to be consistently involved across all four
task types despite strong evidence from lesion studies that this region also plays a crucial
role for supervisory attentional control, in particular for the sub-process of task-setting (e.g.
Shallice et al., 2008a; Shallice et al., 2008b; Stuss and Alexander, 2007). More specifically,
it has been shown that patients suffering from left lateral PFC lesions show increased error
rates particularly in the initial stages of learning a task (i.e., when new schemata need to be
acquired), while performance becomes normal in later trials (Shallice et al., 2008a; Shallice
et al., 2008b). In line with that, an fMRI study by Hartstra et al. (2011) found the left lateral
PFC including the IFJ to be specifically activated for the implementation of new compared
to multiple applied task instructions. Similarly, Ruge and Wolfensteller (2010) found a
practice-related activation decrease in the IFJ, with increased BOLD activity present in the
first trials of newly instructed S-R mappings and a BOLD signal decrease to above baseline
with increasing practice. These findings have been interpreted as showing a specific role of
the left lateral PFC in task-setting, that is, setting the specific stimulus–response
contingencies that will automatically control behaviour when the tasks becomes routine. In
line with this notion, activity within the left lateral PFC, particularly the left IFJ, has also
consistently been shown during various forms of task switching where participants have to
constantly update and switch the actual relevant task set (Brass and Cramon, 2004; Derrfuss
et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2012). As the neuroimaging studies included in our meta-analyses
did not examine differences in BOLD fluctuations between the beginning of the a block (i.e.
the learning phase) and the phase when participants perform the task in a more automated
fashion, this might have driven our finding of no consistent involvement of left lateral PFC
across all task types investigated. Interestingly, the Stroop task was the only task that
revealed consistent involvement of left lateral PFC including IFJ in the single-task analysis.
This is in line with a previous meta-analysis that found consistent involvement of left IFJ in
the Stroop task (Derrfuss et al., 2005). A possible reason for this bilateral finding for the
Stroop task might be the verbal character of the task, which may lead to stronger recruitment
of left-sided prefrontal regions. Another explanation comes from behavioral and
neuroimaging studies showing that in the Stroop task two types of conflict play a role: (i)
informational (or response) conflict between the contradictory information that arises from
the word meaning and the information that arises from the word colour, and (ii) task
conflict, i.e. a conflict between the relevant identification of the colour naming task and the
irrelevant but automatic reading task (Goldfarb and Henik, 2007; Kalanthroff et al., 2013).
As such, the Stroop task requires some form of task-setting or, more particularly, switching
between two task sets throughout the task, leading to consistent recruitment of left lateral
PFC in this task type.
In summary, we showed that the right aI, IFJ and aMCC/preSMA are consistently found in
tasks requiring cognitive control over a predominant response tendency. While previous
studies have commonly proposed the PFC to exert specific inhibitory control over other
brain regions, we argue that these core regions implement inhibitory control rather indirectly
by monitoring the relevant task set and enhancing goal-relevant processing whenever the
predominant task schema does not agree with the superordinate behavioural goal (see also
Munakata et al., 2011). This interpretation also has implications for patients with frontal
lobe lesions or psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, where abnormal task performance has commonly been interpreted as a deficit in
inhibitory action control (Aron et al., 2003; Broerse et al., 2001; Depue et al., 2010; Rubia et
al., 2010). However, it seems that rather than being caused by a failure of directed global
inhibition, response errors in these patients may be more strongly related to a failure to
monitor and implement the relevant task set (see also Everling and Johnston, 2013; Langner
et al., 2014; Munakata et al., 2011).
4.3 Individual task analyses

In addition to the consistently recruited regions discussed above (i.e., right aI, right IFJ, and
aMCC/preSMA), several other regions were selectively recruited by distinct paradigm
classes. These paradigm-specific foci will be discussed in the following.
4.3.1 Stroop task—For the Stroop task, significant convergence of activity was found
bilaterally in aI/IFG, dorsal-posterior IFG, parietal cortex as well as the aMCC/preSMA
(Fig. 2A).
Interestingly, a strongly bilateral network was found for the Stroop task, despite the task’s
verbal character. It has to be noted that in the present meta-analysis we not only included
colour-word Stroop experiments but also slightly different versions such as the numerical
Stroop, which may have driven the more bilateral activity. We therefore ran a supplementary
meta-analysis across Stroop tasks only including those 47 experiments investigating the
classic colour-word version. As can be seen in Figure S1, even though activations were less
extended, this analysis did not change the overall results. That is, even when the analysis
was restricted to colour-word Stroop tasks, we found a largely symmetric bilateral network.
We therefore suggest that performance in the Stroop task relies on a bilateral network, in
particular within the prefrontal and parietal cortices.
While most studies have emphasized the role of the frontal cortex and aMCC in the Stroop
task as substrates of conflict processing and cognitive control during incongruent responding
(cf. Derrfuss et al., 2005; Laird et al., 2005), we also found consistent involvement of
parietal regions. Moreover, when only including the colour-word version of the Stroop task,
additional convergence of activity was found in the left inferior occipital gyrus. In particular,
convergence of activity in the left inferior occipital cortex was located very closely to the
visual word form area (McCandliss et al., 2003) that has consistently been related to the
perceptual processing of visual letter stimuli (James et al., 2005; Vinckier et al., 2007). We
therefore propose that the left inferior occipital cortex is most likely related to a (top-down
modulated) increase in the sensory analysis of the stimulus when word meaning and word
colour are incongruent.
Parietal foci were located in bilateral medial IPS, in particular area hIP3 (Scheperjans et al.,
2008a; Scheperjans et al., 2008b). The medial part of the IPS has been discussed to play a
critical role in the selection between competing stimuli as well as different stimulus features
(Gillebert et al., 2013a; Gillebert et al., 2013b; Molenberghs et al., 2007; Vandenberghe et
al., 2005). In the Stroop task, the automatic tendency to read the word interferes with the
task instruction to name the colour of the word. Convergence of activity for the Stroop task
in bilateral IPS would thus most likely be related to the selection of the relevant stimulus
features when participants are required to focus their attention on the colour of the word
while inhibiting the automatic reading. In turn, the IPS may then represent the source of top-
down (attentional) signals modulating the processing in earlier visual cortices, i.e., the
aforementioned occipital effect.
4.3.2 Spatial interference tasks—In the spatial interference tasks, convergence of

activity was found in a bilateral frontoparietal network consisting of the dPMC and SPL as
well as the right IFJ and adjacent IFG, right aI, and aMCC/preSMA.
The parietal lobe (around the IPS and SPL) and the dorsal frontal cortex along the precentral
sulcus have been proposed to form a dorsal attention network (Corbetta et al., 2008;
Corbetta and Shulman, 2002). Increased activity in this network has been shown during
spatially incompatible responding (Cieslik et al., 2010; Schumacher et al., 2003) and in
relation to attentional reorienting and increased demands of S-R mapping and redirecting of
response intentions (e.g. Mars et al., 2007; Rushworth et al., 2003; Sylvester et al., 2003).
All paradigms subsumed under the label “spatial interference tasks” in the present study
require resolution of spatial conflicts for successful responding. In all these paradigms, an
automatic reorientation of attention and response preparation in the direction of the spatial
stimulus dimension is induced. Participants then need to reorient their focus of attention to
perform adequately and initiate a response to a non-dominant spatial location. Consistent

involvement of the dorsal attention network across these tasks should thus reflect an
increased need for controlled spatial processing when participants intentionally reorient
attention as well as response intentions to adequately respond in a spatially incongruent

manner.
Interestingly, the present meta-analysis revealed consistent involvement of area 7A

(Scheperjans et al., 2008a; Scheperjans et al., 2008b) in the SPL. This in in line with
previous fMRI studies that revealed a crucial role for the SPL in shifting the locus of spatial
attention (Capotosto et al., 2013; Vandenberghe and Gillebert, 2013; Vandenberghe et al.,
2001) but less involvement of the SPL when stimulus features change without spatial shift
(Molenberghs et al., 2007). The present study moreover showed a differential involvement
of posterior parietal cortex in the Stroop and spatial interference tasks (Figure S2C). In
particular, the medial IPS showed stronger convergence for the Stroop task, while the SPL
(area 7A) showed stronger convergence for spatial interference tasks. This finding may well
be related to functional imaging studies showing a differentiation within the parietal cortex
for attentional shifts. Thereafter, the middle IPS has been associated with the selection
between competing stimuli (Gillebert et al., 2013a; Gillebert et al., 2013b; Vandenberghe et
al., 2005), and feature attention shifts (Molenberghs et al., 2007). In contrast, the SPL is
specifically activated during spatial shifts of attention such as when a spatial displacement
occurs in the location of the target or the focus of attention (Capotosto et al., 2013;
Molenberghs et al., 2007; Vandenberghe et al., 2001) but less strongly so when stimulus
features change without spatial shifts (Molenberghs et al., 2007). Hence, differential parietal
involvement when comparing the Stroop and spatial interference tasks in the present meta-
analysis might reflect differences in attentional shifting demands, with spatial attention
shifts required in spatial interference tasks and feature attention shifts required in the Stroop
task.
4.3.3 Stop-signal task—In the stop signal task convergent increased activity for motor
response inhibition versus responding was found in the bilateral aI extending into posterior
IFG on the right side as well as the right IFJ, dPMC and TPJ. Moreover, the aMCC,
preSMA/SMA, posterior cingulate cortex, as well as bilateral thalamus showed significant
convergence of activity (Fig. 2C). Interestingly, the right TPJ, posterior cingulate cortex and
thalamus were only found for the stop signal tasks but were not consistently associated with
any other task type. Conceptually, stop signal tasks differ from the other task types in that
they require inhibiting or, rather, cancelling an already initiated motor response, while the
go/no-go, Stroop and spatial interference tasks require suppression of a dominant but not yet
initiated action. Successful inhibitory control in stop signal tasks requires attentional capture
and evaluation of the relevant stop cue and inhibition of the (already initiated) motor
response (Logan, 1997). The right TPJ – together with the right frontal cortex – has been
suggested to form a ventral attention network that is associated with the (re)direction of
attention to behaviorally relevant stimuli outside the current focus of attention (Corbetta et
al., 2008; Corbetta and Shulman, 2002; Fox et al., 2006). A recent review, however,
proposed a more global role of the right TPJ based on evidence that this area is related to the
integration of stimulus information with internal models of task performance and
expectations, thereby playing a pivotal role in contextual updating (Geng and Vossel, 2013).
In line with this view, the right TPJ has been associated with predictive motor coding,
including the updating of action expectations and the comparison of pre-prepared programs
with current task requirements (cf. Eickhoff et al., 2011b; Jakobs et al., 2009) as well as
updating of temporal predictions of the onset of the next stimulus and its associated response
(Langner et al., 2012). With respect to the stop signal task, consistent involvement of the
right TPJ would thus most likely be associated with the updating of the context and its
associated response when the stop signal is “captured” in the attentional focus, indicating the
need to inhibit the already initiated motor response.
In addition, the two other regions that were consistently recruited only by the stop signal
tasks, the dorsal PCC and thalamus, have recently been shown to be part of a network
specifically associated with the cancellation of already initiated actions (Dambacher et al.,
2014). Even though a recent meta-analysis (Swick et al., 2011) also showed consistent
involvement of the PCC in the stop signal task, and other authors found stronger
involvement of this region in successful compared to failed inhibition (Li et al., 2006), the
functional role of this region in the context of response inhibition has rarely been discussed.
Rather, the PCC is best known for its central role within the default mode network, a set of
brain regions showing strongly correlated activity during the resting state and consistent
deactivation during divergent cognitive control tasks (Buckner et al., 2008; Buckner and
Carroll, 2007; Raichle et al., 2001; Schilbach et al., 2012). Anatomical evidence and
network analyses, however, support the assumption that the PCC is not a homogenous
region but can be divided into a dorsal and ventral subregion that differ in their
cytoarchitectonic organization as well as their functional properties and network dynamics
(Leech et al., 2011; Leech and Sharp, 2014; Vogt et al., 2006). While both subregions show
resting state functional connectivity (RS-FC) with the default mode network, the dorsal PCC
moreover reveals RS-FC with regions strongly related to cognitive control (Leech et al.,
2011). Furthermore, the dorsal PCC has been proposed to play a key role in maintaining a
broad attentional focus thereby being able to alter behaviour in response to unexpected
changes in the environment that are not part of the current cognitive set (cf. Leech and
Sharp, 2014; Pearson et al., 2011). With regard to the present results, this interpretation
would be in agreement with dorsal PCC involvement for successful inhibition in the stop
signal task when a delayed stimulus in the environment has to be detected. Here it would
mediate between internal and external attentional focus to successfully integrate the delayed
stop stimulus with the current attentional focus and task set (Leech et al., 2011).
Additionally, the finding of consistent involvement of the thalamus in the stop signal task
relates well to other studies showing that the thalamus increases activity during response
inhibition (Aron and Poldrack, 2006; Aron et al., 2003; Bellgrove et al., 2004) and
suggesting that it plays a key role for successful versus failed inhibition (Li et al., 2006).
Moreover, the thalamus seems to be specifically involved in active action cancellation as a
recent fMRI study found the thalamus to be more activated when cancelling actions in the
stop signal task versus restraining of actions in the go/no-go task (Dambacher et al., 2014).
In the present study, consistent activity was specifically found in that part of the thalamus
which is anatomically connected with the prefrontal cortex as shown by diffusion data
(Behrens et al., 2003), suggesting that this part of the thalamus together with the prefrontal
cortex might form a cortical circuit related to the control of response inhibition and
specifically comes into play when already initiated motor plans have to be cancelled (see
also Aron, 2011; Dambacher et al., 2014).
4.3.4 Go/No-Go task—The go/no-go task was associated with consistent activity in a
right-lateralized frontal network consisting of anterior and posterior DLPFC, IFJ, as well as
aI extending into the IFG. Moreover, consistent parietal activity was found in the IPS
extending into adjacent IPC and SPL (Fig. 2D).
Interestingly, the regions consistently involved in the go/no-go task differed to some extent
from the results of the stop signal task even though these two tasks have been discussed very
similarly in the literature (cf. Verbruggen and Logan, 2008). The present study, however,
provides evidence for differential networks involved in withholding versus cancelling
responses (Fig. S2D). In particular, action withholding is consistently linked to activity in
the right anterior and posterior DLPFC as well as extended activity in right parietal cortex
(covering IPS, SPL and IPC) (Figure 2D). To further characterize lateral prefrontal foci in
the go/no-go task, anterior and posterior DLPFC cluster were compared with sub-regions in
the dorsolateral frontal cortex recently identified using tractography-based parcellation by
Sallet et al. (2013). While our posterior DLPFC cluster is located in cluster 6/Area9/46v as
defined by Sallet et al., our anterior cluster was localized in their cluster 7/Area 46.
The (right) DLPFC has been associated with choosing responses based on rules (cf.
Ridderinkhof et al., 2004) and the selection of items from working memory (Rowe and
Passingham, 2001; Rowe et al., 2000). The DLPFC shows strong anatomical connections
with the parietal lobes as well as motor system structures (Bates and Goldman-Rakic, 1993;
Cavada and Goldman-Rakic, 1989; Lu et al., 1994; Petrides and Pandya, 1984, 1999;
Schmahmann and Pandya, 1997), thereby lying in a perfect position to monitor behaviour by
mediating which S-R association has to be implemented in a given context (Miller and
Cohen, 2001). The present study reveals that two different parts of the DLPFC – an anterior
part and a posterior one – show consistently stronger involvement in no-go compared to go
conditions (Fig. 2D). Hierarchical models propose an anterior–posterior gradient in the PFC
for executive control processes (Badre and D'Esposito, 2009; Koechlin and Summerfield,
2007), with more anterior parts of lateral PFC involved in the representation of more
abstract schemata such as context and future tasks, while more posterior parts of lateral PFC
are associated with the implementation of instructions and rules into actual motor output (for
a review see (Courtney, 2004)). In line with that, we propose that the more anterior foci in
the present study may be related to the representation of contextual information such as task
instructions, while the more posterior foci may implement which S-R (or stimulus–stop)
association needs to be assessed in the respective condition (cf. Simmonds et al., 2008). This
would then be performed conjointly with the parietal cortex, which is assumed to integrate
visuo-spatial, motor and memory information into S-R associations under the control of the
DLPFC (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002; Gottlieb, 2007) and which showed consistent
involvement in go/no-go tasks in the present meta-analysis as well as in previous ones
(Simmonds et al., 2008; Swick et al., 2011).
Interestingly, the go/no-go task was the only task that did not reveal a consistent
involvement of the aMCC and preSMA in cognitive action control. In contrast, two previous
meta-analyses did find consistent recruitment of the preSMA for the go/no-go task
(Simmonds et al., 2008; Swick et al., 2011). This discrepancy might be driven by different
factors. For example, the two other meta-analyses included a smaller number of studies (11
and 21 experiments respectively) and used less conservative thresholds. More importantly,
however, selection criteria differed between those studies and our study: as both previous
meta-analyses also included experiments using “no-go vs. baseline” or “no-go vs. fixation”
contrasts, respectively, while in the present meta-analysis only “no-go vs. go” contrasts were
included. Hence, given that “go”-conditions also recruit the aMCC/preSMA, the probability
to find consistent activity in aMCC/preSMA was much higher in the two previous studies.
Our results reveal that the aMCC and preSMA are not consistently more strongly involved
in no-go versus go responses. This might be explained by the fact that in the no-go condition
participants have to withhold a motor response without initiating an alternative action.
Integrating our results with those from the two previous meta-analyses (Simmonds et al.,
2008; Swick et al., 2011) we suggest that response withholding indeed does consistently
recruit the aMCC/preSMA, but not to a stronger degree than does the initiation of a go-
response.
5. Conclusion
In this study, we investigated the neural substrates of cognitive action control via
coordinate-based ALE meta-analyses of brain activity reported for Stroop, spatial
interference, stop-signal, and go/no-go tasks. Our study provides evidence for a pivotal role
of the right aI and right IFJ in supervisory attentional control, because these were the only
two regions consistently involved in all four paradigm classes, as revealed by a minimum
conjunction analysis. Furthermore, aMCC and preSMA were commonly recruited by all but
the go/no-go task. In contrast to previous studies that proposed the PFC to exert specific
inhibitory control over other brain regions, we argue that these core regions implement
inhibitory control rather indirectly by monitoring the relevant task set and exciting goal-
relevant processing areas whenever the predominant task schema does not agree with the
superordinate behavioural goal. Following the conceptual model of Stuss, Shallice and
colleagues (Stuss, 2011; Stuss et al., 1995), we would argue that the aI and IFJ in the right
hemisphere support schema activation monitoring processes, with the aI playing a crucial
role in monitoring and general implementation of the relevant task set, while the right IFJ is
more specifically associated with the continuous reactivation of the relevant S-R rule. The
aMCC/preSMA, on the other hand, is thought to mediate energization of the adequate
(general) task schema.
Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
We thank all contacted authors who contributed results of relevant contrasts not explicitly reported in the original
publications, and we apologize to all authors whose eligible papers we might have missed.
This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, EI 816/4-1; EI 816/6-1 and LA
3071/3-1.), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH074457) and the European EFT program (Human
Brain Project).
References
Aarts E, Roelofs A, van Turennout M. Anticipatory activity in anterior cingulate cortex can be
independent of conflict and error likelihood. J Neurosci. 2008; 28:4671–4678. [PubMed: 18448644]
Adleman NE, Menon V, Blasey CM, White CD, Warsofsky IS, Glover GH, Reiss AL. A
developmental fMRI study of the Stroop color-word task. Neuroimage. 2002; 16:61–75. [PubMed:
11969318]
Aichert DS, Williams SC, Moller HJ, Kumari V, Ettinger U. Functional neural correlates of
psychometric schizotypy: an fMRI study of antisaccades. Psychophysiology. 2012; 49:345–356.
[PubMed: 22091533]
Alexander WH, Brown JW. Computational models of performance monitoring and cognitive control.
Topics in cognitive science. 2010; 2:658–677. [PubMed: 21359126]
Alvarez JA, Emory E. Executive function and the frontal lobes: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychol
Rev. 2006; 16:17–42. [PubMed: 16794878]
Amunts K, Schleicher A, Burgel U, Mohlberg H, Uylings HB, Zilles K. Broca’s region revisited:
cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability. The Journal of comparative neurology. 1999; 412:319–
341. [PubMed: 10441759]
Aron AR. From reactive to proactive and selective control: developing a richer model for stopping
inappropriate responses. Biol Psychiatry. 2011; 69:e55–e68. [PubMed: 20932513]

Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Cortical and subcortical contributions to Stop signal response inhibition: role
of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci. 2006; 26:2424–2433. [PubMed: 16510720]
Aron AR, Schlaghecken F, Fletcher PC, Bullmore ET, Eimer M, Barker R, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW.
Inhibition of subliminally primed responses is mediated by the caudate and thalamus: evidence from
functional MRI and Huntington’s disease. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2003; 126:713–723.
[PubMed: 12566291]
Aron AR, Fletcher PC, Bullmore ET, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW. Stop signal inhibition disrupted by
damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans. Nature Neurosciece. 2003; 6:115–116.
Asahi S, Okamoto Y, Okada G, Yamawaki S, Yokota N. Negative correlation between right prefrontal
activity during response inhibition and impulsiveness: a fMRI study. European archives of
psychiatry and clinical neuroscience. 2004; 254:245–251. [PubMed: 15309395]
Badre D, D’Esposito M. Is the rostro-caudal axis of the frontal lobe hierarchical? Nat Rev Neurosci.
2009; 10:659–669. [PubMed: 19672274]
Banich MT, Milham MP, Jacobson BL, Webb A, Wszalek T, Cohen NJ, Kramer AF. Attentional
selection and the processing of task-irrelevant information: insights from fMRI examinations of
the Stroop task. Progress in brain research. 2001; 134:459–470. [PubMed: 11702561]
Barber AD, Caffo BS, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH. Effects of working memory demand on neural
mechanisms of motor response selection and control. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2013;
25:1235–1248. [PubMed: 23530923]
Barros-Loscertales A, Bustamante JC, Ventura-Campos N, Llopis JJ, Parcet MA, Avila C. Lower
activation in the right frontoparietal network during a counting Stroop task in a cocaine-dependent
group. Psychiatry research. 2011; 194:111–118. [PubMed: 21958514]
Basten U, Stelzel C, Fiebach CJ. Trait anxiety modulates the neural efficiency of inhibitory control.
Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2011; 23:3132–3145. [PubMed: 21391763]
Bates JF, Goldman-Rakic PS. Prefrontal connections of medial motor areas in the rhesus monkey. The
Journal of comparative neurology. 1993; 336:211–228. [PubMed: 7503997]
Becker TM, Kerns JG, Macdonald AW 3rd, Carter CS. Prefrontal dysfunction in first-degree relatives
of schizophrenia patients during a Stroop task. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of
the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008; 33:2619–2625. [PubMed: 18216774]
Behrens TE, Johansen-Berg H, Woolrich MW, Smith SM, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Boulby PA, Barker
GJ, Sillery EL, Sheehan K, Ciccarelli O, Thompson AJ, Brady JM, Matthews PM. Non-invasive
mapping of connections between human thalamus and cortex using diffusion imaging. Nature
neuroscience. 2003; 6:750–757.
Bellgrove MA, Hester R, Garavan H. The functional neuroanatomical correlates of response
variability: evidence from a response inhibition task. Neuropsychologia. 2004; 42:1910–1916.

[PubMed: 15381021]
Bench CJ, Frith CD, Grasby PM, Friston KJ, Paulesu E, Frackowiak RS, Dolan RJ. Investigations of
the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test. Neuropsychologia. 1993; 31:907–922.
[PubMed: 8232848]
Boehler CN, Appelbaum LG, Krebs RM, Hopf JM, Woldorff MG. Pinning down response inhibition
in the brain--conjunction analyses of the Stop-signal task. Neuroimage. 2010; 52:1621–1632.
[PubMed: 20452445]
Booth JR, Burman DD, Meyer JR, Lei Z, Trommer BL, Davenport ND, Li W, Parrish TB, Gitelman
DR, Mesulam MM. Neural development of selective attention and response inhibition.
Neuroimage. 2003; 20:737–751. [PubMed: 14568448]
Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS. Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update.
Trends in cognitive sciences. 2004; 8:539–546. [PubMed: 15556023]
Brass M, Derrfuss J, Forstmann B, von Cramon DY. The role of the inferior frontal junction area in
cognitive control. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2005a; 9:314–316. [PubMed: 15927520]
Brass M, Derrfuss J, von Cramon DY. The inhibition of imitative and overlearned responses: a
functional double dissociation. Neuropsychologia. 2005b; 43:89–98. [PubMed: 15488909]
Brass M, von Cramon DY. Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic
resonance imaging. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2004; 16:609–620. [PubMed: 15165351]

Broerse A, Crawford TJ, den Boer JA. Parsing cognition in schizophrenia using saccadic eye
movements: a selective overview. Neuropsychologia. 2001; 39:742–756. [PubMed: 11311304]
Buckner RL, Andrews-Hanna JR, Schacter DL. The brain’s default network: anatomy, function, and
relevance to disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008; 1124:1–38. [PubMed:
18400922]
Buckner RL, Carroll DC. Self-projection and the brain. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2007; 11:49–57.
[PubMed: 17188554]
Bunge SA, Hazeltine E, Scanlon MD, Rosen AC, Gabrieli JD. Dissociable contributions of prefrontal
and parietal cortices to response selection. Neuroimage. 2002; 17:1562–1571. [PubMed:
12414294]
Bunge SA, Dudukovic NM, Thomason ME, Vaidya CJ, Gabrieli JDE. Immature frontal lobe
contributions to cognitive control in children: Evidence from fMRI. Neuron. 2002; 33:301–311.
[PubMed: 11804576]
Bush G, Whalen PJ, Rosen BR, Jenike MA, McInerney SC, Rauch SL. The counting Stroop: an
interference task specialized for functional neuroimaging--validation study with functional MRI.
Hum Brain Mapp. 1998; 6:270–282. [PubMed: 9704265]
Cai W, Leung HC. Cortical activity during manual response inhibition guided by color and orientation
cues. Brain research. 2009; 1261:20–28. [PubMed: 19401178]

Cai W, Leung HC. Rule-guided executive control of response inhibition: functional topography of the
inferior frontal cortex. Plos One. 2011; 6:e20840. [PubMed: 21673969]
Capotosto P, Tosoni A, Spadone S, Sestieri C, Perrucci MG, Romani GL, Della Penna S, Corbetta M.
Anatomical segregation of visual selection mechanisms in human parietal cortex. J Neurosci.
2013; 33:6225–6229. [PubMed: 23554503]
Carter CS, Mintun M, Cohen JD. Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: an
H215O PET study of Stroop task performance. Neuroimage. 1995; 2:264–272. [PubMed:
9343611]
Caspers S, Eickhoff SB, Geyer S, Scheperjans F, Mohlberg H, Zilles K, Amunts K. The human
inferior parietal lobule in stereotaxic space. Brain structure & function. 2008; 212:481–495.
[PubMed: 18651173]
Caspers S, Geyer S, Schleicher A, Mohlberg H, Amunts K, Zilles K. The human inferior parietal
cortex: cytoarchitectonic parcellation and interindividual variability. Neuroimage. 2006; 33:430–
448. [PubMed: 16949304]
Cavada C, Goldman-Rakic PS. Posterior parietal cortex in rhesus monkey: II. Evidence for segregated
corticocortical networks linking sensory and limbic areas with the frontal lobe. The Journal of
comparative neurology. 1989; 287:422–445. [PubMed: 2477406]
Chevrier AD, Noseworthy MD, Schachar R. Dissociation of response inhibition and performance
monitoring in the stop signal task using event-related fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007; 28:1347–
1358. [PubMed: 17274022]
Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Asari T, Yamashita K, Morimoto H, Hirose S, Miyashita Y, Konishi S.
Functional dissociation in right inferior frontal cortex during performance of go/no-go task. Cereb
Cortex. 2009a; 19:146–152. [PubMed: 18445602]
Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Hirose S, Yamashita K, Miyashita Y, Konishi S. Preparation to inhibit a
response complements response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task. J Neurosci.
2009b; 29:15870–15877. [PubMed: 20016103]
Chikazoe J, Konishi S, Asari T, Jimura K, Miyashita Y. Activation of right inferior frontal gyrus
during response inhibition across response modalities. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2007;
19:69–80. [PubMed: 17214564]
Choi HJ, Zilles K, Mohlberg H, Schleicher A, Fink GR, Armstrong E, Amunts K. Cytoarchitectonic
identification and probabilistic mapping of two distinct areas within the anterior ventral bank of
the human intraparietal sulcus. The Journal of comparative neurology. 2006; 495:53–69. [PubMed:
16432904]
Christensen TA, Lockwood JL, Almryde KR, Plante E. Neural substrates of attentive listening
assessed with a novel auditory Stroop task. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2011; 4:236.
[PubMed: 21258643]
Cieslik EC, Zilles K, Kurth F, Eickhoff SB. Dissociating bottom-up and top-down processes in a
manual stimulus-response compatibility task. Journal of neurophysiology. 2010; 104:1472–1483.
[PubMed: 20573974]
Coderre EL, Filippi CG, Newhouse PA, Dumas JA. The Stroop effect in kana and kanji scripts in
native Japanese speakers: an fMRI study. Brain and language. 2008; 107:124–132. [PubMed:
18325582]
Cole MW, Schneider W. The cognitive control network: Integrated cortical regions with dissociable
functions. Neuroimage. 2007; 37:343–360. [PubMed: 17553704]
Corbetta M, Patel G, Shulman GL. The reorienting system of the human brain: from environment to
theory of mind. Neuron. 2008; 58:306–324. [PubMed: 18466742]
Corbetta M, Shulman GL. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev
Neurosci. 2002; 3:201–215. [PubMed: 11994752]
Courtney SM. Attention and cognitive control as emergent properties of information representation in
working memory. Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience. 2004; 4:501–516.
Craig AD. The sentient self. Brain structure & function. 2010; 214:563–577. [PubMed: 20512381]
Dambacher F, Sack AT, Lobbestael J, Arntz A, Brugman S, Schuhmann T. A network approach to
response inhibition: dissociating functional connectivity of neural components involved in action
restraint and action cancellation. The European journal of neuroscience. 2014; 39:821–831.
[PubMed: 24289860]
Depue BE, Burgess GC, Erik Willcutt EG, Ruzic L, Banich MT. Inhibitory control of memory etrieval
and motor procssing associated with the right lateral prefrontal cortex: evidence from deficits in
individuals with ADHD. Neuopsychologia. 2010; 48:3909–3917.
Derrfuss J, Brass M, Neumann J, von Cramon DY. Involvement of the inferior frontal junction in
cognitive control: meta-analyses of switching and Stroop studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005; 25:22–
34. [PubMed: 15846824]
Derrfuss J, Brass M, von Cramon DY. Cognitive control in the posterior frontolateral cortex: evidence
from common activations in task coordination, interference control, and working memory.
Diamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013; 64:135–168. [PubMed: 23020641]
Doricchi F, Perani D, Incoccia C, Grassi F, Cappa SF, Bettinardi V, Galati G, Pizzamiglio L, Fazio F.
Neural control of fast-regular saccades and antisaccades: an investigation using positron emission
tomography. Experimental brain research. 1997; 116:50–62. [PubMed: 9305814]
Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Cohen AL, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. A dual-networks architecture of top-
down control. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2008; 12:99–105. [PubMed: 18262825]
Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Miezin FM, Cohen AL, Wenger KK, Dosenbach RA, Fox MD, Snyder AZ,
Vincent JL, Raichle ME, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and
stable task control in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104:11073–11078. [PubMed:
17576922]
Dosenbach NUF, Visscher KM, Palmer ED, Miezin FM, Wenger KK, Kang HSC, Burgund ED,
Grimes AL, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. A core system for the implementation of task sets.
Neuron. 2006; 50:799–812. [PubMed: 16731517]
Duncan J. The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent
behaviour. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2010; 14:172–179. [PubMed: 20171926]
Duncan J, Owen AM. Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive
demands. Trends in neurosciences. 2000; 23:475–483. [PubMed: 11006464]
Eagle DM, Bari A, Robbins TW. The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species
translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks. Psychopharmacology. 2008; 199:439–456.
[PubMed: 18542931]
Eckert MA, Menon V, Walczak A, Ahlstrom J, Denslow S, Horwitz A, Dubno JR. At the heart of the
ventral attention system: the right anterior insula. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009; 30:2530–2541.
[PubMed: 19072895]
Egner T, Etkin A, Gale S, Hirsch J. Dissociable neural systems resolve conflict from emotional versus
nonemotional distractors. Cerebral Cortex. 2008; 18:1475–1484. [PubMed: 17940084]
Eickhoff SB, Bzdok D, Laird AR, Kurth F, Fox PT. Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis
revisited. Neuroimage. 2012; 59:2349–2361. [PubMed: 21963913]
Eickhoff SB, Laird AR, Grefkes C, Wang LE, Zilles K, Fox PT. Coordinate-based activation
likelihood estimation meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: a random-effects approach based on
empirical estimates of spatial uncertainty. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009; 30:2907–2926. [PubMed:
19172646]
Eickhoff SB, Paus T, Caspers S, Grosbras MH, Evans AC, Zilles K, Amunts K. Assignment of
functional activations to probabilistic cytoarchitectonic areas revisited. Neuroimage. 2007;
36:511–521. [PubMed: 17499520]
Eickhoff SB, Bzdok D, Laird AR, Roski C, Caspers S, Zilles K, Fox PT. Co-activation patterns
distinguish cortical modules, their connectivity and functional differentiation. NeuroImage. 2011a;
57:938–949. [PubMed: 21609770]
Eickhoff SB, Pomjanski W, Jakobs O, Zilles K, Langner R. Neural correlates of developing and
adapting behavioral biases in speeded choice reactions--an fMRI study on predictive motor
coding. Cereb Cortex. 2011b; 21:1178–1191. [PubMed: 20956614]
Eickhoff SB, Stephan KE, Mohlberg H, Grefkes C, Fink GR, Amunts K, Zilles K. A new SPM toolbox
for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. Neuroimage.
2005; 25:1325–1335. [PubMed: 15850749]
Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non-search
task. Perception Psychophysics. 1974; 16:143–149.

Ettinger U, Williams SC, Patel D, Michel TM, Nwaigwe A, Caceres A, Mehta MA, Anilkumar AP,
Kumari V. Effects of acute nicotine on brain function in healthy smokers and non-smokers:
estimation of inter-individual response heterogeneity. Neuroimage. 2009; 45:549–561. [PubMed:
19159693]
Everling S, Johnston K. Control of the superior colliculus by the lateral prefrontal cortex.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 2013;
368:20130068.
Fan J, Flombaum JI, McCandliss BD, Thomas KM, Posner MI. Cognitive and brain consequences of
conflict. Neuroimage. 2003; 18:42–57. [PubMed: 12507442]
Fan J, Kolster R, Ghajar J, Suh M, Knight RT, Sarkar R, McCandliss BD. Response anticipation and
response conflict: an event-related potential and functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J
Neurosci. 2007; 27:2272–2282. [PubMed: 17329424]
Fan J, McCandliss BD, Fossella J, Flombaum JI, Posner MI. The activation of attentional networks.
Fassbender C, Murphy K, Foxe JJ, Wylie GR, Javitt DC, Robertson IH, Garavan H. A topography of
executive functions and their interactions revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging.
Brain research. Cognitive brain research. 2004; 20:132–143. [PubMed: 15183386]
Fauth-Buhler M, de Rover M, Rubia K, Garavan H, Abbott S, Clark L, Vollstadt-Klein S, Mann K,
Schumann G, Robbins TW. Brain networks subserving fixed versus performance-adjusted delay
stop trials in a stop signal task. Behav Brain Res. 2012; 235:89–97. [PubMed: 22820235]
Fedorenko E, Duncan J, Kanwisher N. Broad domain generality in focal regions of frontal and parietal
cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110:16616–16621. [PubMed: 24062451]
Fitts PM, Seeger CM. S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes.
Journal of experimental psychology. 1953; 46:199–210. [PubMed: 13084867]
Ford KA, Goltz HC, Brown MR, Everling S. Neural processes associated with antisaccade task
performance investigated with event-related FMRI. Journal of neurophysiology. 2005; 94:429–
440. [PubMed: 15728770]
Forstmann BU, van den Wildenberg WP, Ridderinkhof KR. Neural mechanisms, temporal dynamics,
and individual differences in interference control. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008; 20:1854–1865.
[PubMed: 18370596]
Fox MD, Corbetta M, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Raichle ME. Spontaneous neuronal activity
distinguishes human dorsal and ventral attention systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;
103:10046–10051. [PubMed: 16788060]
Frings C, Englert J, Wenture D, Bermeitinger C. Decomposing the emotional stroop effect. Q J Exp
Psychol. 2010; 63:42–49.
Fruhholz S, Godde B, Finke M, Herrmann M. Spatio-temporal brain dynamics in a combined stimulus-
stimulus and stimulus-response conflict task. Neuroimage. 2011; 54:622–634. [PubMed:
20691791]
Garavan H, Ross TJ, Kaufman J, Stein EA. A midline dissociation between error-processing and
response-conflict monitoring. Neuroimage. 2003; 20:1132–1139. [PubMed: 14568482]
Garavan H, Ross TJ, Murphy K, Roche RA, Stein EA. Dissociable executive functions in the dynamic
control of behavior: inhibition, error detection, and correction. Neuroimage. 2002; 17:1820–1829.
[PubMed: 12498755]
Garavan H, Ross TJ, Stein EA. Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: an event-related
functional MRI study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999; 96:8301–8306. [PubMed: 10393989]
Geng JJ, Ruff CC, Driver J. Saccades to a remembered location elicit spatially specific activation in
human retinotopic visual cortex. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2009; 21:230–245. [PubMed:
18510442]
Geng JJ, Vossel S. Re-evaluating the role of TPJ in attentional control: contextual updating? Neurosci
Biobehav Rev. 2013; 37:2608–2620. [PubMed: 23999082]
George MS, Ketter TA, Parekh PI, Rosinsky N, Ring H, Casey BJ, Trimble MR, Horwitz B,
Herscovitch P, Post RM. Regional brain activity when selecting a response despite interference:
An H2 (15) O PET study of the stroop and an emotional stroop. Hum. Brain Mapp. 1994; 1:194–
209. [PubMed: 24578040]
George MS, Ketter TA, Parekh PI, Rosinsky N, Ring HA, Pazzaglia PJ, Marangell LB, Callahan AM,
Post RM. Blunted left cingulate activation in mood disorder subjects during a response
interference task (the Stroop). The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 1997;
9:55–63. [PubMed: 9017529]
Georgiou-Karistianis N, Akhlaghi H, Corben LA, Delatycki MB, Storey E, Bradshaw JL, Egan GF.
Decreased functional brain activation in Friedreich ataxia using the Simon effect task. Brain Cogn.
2012; 79:200–208. [PubMed: 22542844]
Geyer S, Ledberg A, Schleicher A, Kinomura S, Schormann T, Burgel U, Klingberg T, Larsson J,
Zilles K, Roland PE. Two different areas within the primary motor cortex of man. Nature. 1996;
382:805–807. [PubMed: 8752272]
Gillebert CR, Caspari N, Wagemans J, Peeters R, Dupont P, Vandenberghe R. Spatial stimulus

configuration and attentional selection: extrastriate and superior parietal interactions. Cereb
Cortex. 2013a; 23:2840–2854. [PubMed: 22941718]
Gillebert CR, Mantini D, Peeters R, Dupont P, Vandenberghe R. Cytoarchitectonic mapping of

attentional selection and reorienting in parietal cortex. Neuroimage. 2013b; 67:257–272. [PubMed:
23201362]
Goldfarb L, Henik A. Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. J Exp Psychol Human. 2007;
33:1170–1176.
Gottlieb J. From thought to action: the parietal cortex as a bridge between perception, action, and
cognition. Neuron. 2007; 53:9–16. [PubMed: 17196526]
Grandjean J, D’Ostilio K, Fias W, Phillips C, Balteau E, Degueldre C, Luxen A, Maquet P, Salmon E,
Collette F. Exploration of the mechanisms underlying the ISPC effect: evidence from behavioral
and neuroimaging data. Neuropsychologia. 2013; 51:1040–1049. [PubMed: 23474077]
Grandjean J, D’Ostilio K, Phillips C, Balteau E, Degueldre C, Luxen A, Maquet P, Salmon E, Collette
F. Modulation of brain activity during a Stroop inhibitory task by the kind of cognitive control
required. Plos One. 2012; 7:e41513. [PubMed: 22911806]
Hallett PE. Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions. Vision research. 1978;
18:1279–1296. [PubMed: 726270]
Hart SJ, Green SR, Casp M, Belger A. Emotional priming effects during Stroop task performance.
Hartstra E, Kuhn S, Verguts T, Brass M. The implementation of verbal instructions: an fMRI study.

Hazeltine E, Bunge SA, Scanlon MD, Gabrieli JD. Material-dependent and material-independent
selection processes in the frontal and parietal lobes: an event-related fMRI investigation of
response competition. Neuropsychologia. 2003; 41:1208–1217. [PubMed: 12753960]
Hazeltine E, Poldrack R, Gabrieli JD. Neural activation during response competition. Journal of
cognitive neuroscience. 2000; 2(12 Suppl):118–129. [PubMed: 11506652]
Hendrick OM, Ide JS, Luo X, Li CS. Dissociable processes of cognitive control during error and non-
error conflicts: a study of the stop signal task. Plos One. 2010; 5:e13155. [PubMed: 20949134]
Hester R, Murphy K, Garavan H. Beyond common resources: the cortical basis for resolving task
interference. Neuroimage. 2004a; 23:202–212. [PubMed: 15325367]
Hester RL, Murphy K, Foxe JJ, Foxe DM, Javitt DC, Garavan H. Predicting success: patterns of
cortical activation and deactivation prior to response inhibition. Journal of cognitive
neuroscience. 2004b; 16:776–785. [PubMed: 15200705]
Hirose S, Chikazoe J, Watanabe T, Jimura K, Kunimatsu A, Abe O, Ohtomo K, Miyashita Y, Konishi
S. Efficiency of go/no-go task performance implemented in the left hemisphere. J Neurosci.
2012; 32:9059–9065. [PubMed: 22745505]
Hoffstaedter F, Grefkes C, Zilles K, Eickhoff SB. The "What" and "When" of Self-Initiated
Movements. Cereb Cortex. 2013; 23:520–530. [PubMed: 22414772]
Holmes CJ, Hoge R, Collins L, Woods R, Toga AW, Evans AC. Enhancement of MR images using
registration for signal averaging. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 1998; 22:324–333.
[PubMed: 9530404]
Horn NR, Dolan M, Elliott R, Deakin JF, Woodruff PW. Response inhibition and impulsivity: an
fMRI study. Neuropsychologia. 2003; 41:1959–1966. [PubMed: 14572528]
Hughes ME, Fulham WR, Johnston PJ, Michie PT. Stop-signal response inhibition in schizophrenia:
behavioural, event-related potential and functional neuroimaging data. Biological psychology.
2012; 89:220–231. [PubMed: 22027085]
Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Mazziotta JC. Brain-behavior relationships: evidence from practice effects in
spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Journal of neurophysiology. 1996; 76:321–331.
[PubMed: 8836228]
Isoda M, Hikosaka O. Switching from automatic to controlled action by monkey medial frontal cortex.
Nature neuroscience. 2007; 10:240–248.
Jahfari S, Waldorp L, van den Wildenberg WP, Scholte HS, Ridderinkhof KR, Forstmann BU.
Effective connectivity reveals important roles for both the hyperdirect (fronto-subthalamic) and
the indirect (fronto-striatal-pallidal) fronto-basal ganglia pathways during response inhibition. J

Neurosci. 2011; 31:6891–6899. [PubMed: 21543619]
Jakobs O, Wang LE, Dafotakis M, Grefkes C, Zilles K, Eickhoff SB. Effects of timing and movement
uncertainty implicate the temporo-parietal junction in the prediction of forthcoming motor

actions. Neuroimage. 2009; 47:667–677. [PubMed: 19398017]
James KH, James TW, Jobard G, Wong AC, Gauthier I. Letter processing in the visual system:
different activation patterns for single letters and strings. Cognitive, affective & behavioral
neuroscience. 2005; 5:452–466.
Kaladjian A, Jeanningros R, Azorin JM, Grimault S, Anton JL, Mazzola-Pomietto P. Blunted
activation in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex during motor response inhibition in
schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2007; 97:184–193. [PubMed: 17855057]
Kaladjian A, Jeanningros R, Azorin JM, Nazarian B, Roth M, Anton JL, Mazzola-Pomietto P.
Remission from mania is associated with a decrease in amygdala activation during motor
response inhibition. Bipolar disorders. 2009b; 11:530–538. [PubMed: 19624392]
Kaladjian A, Jeanningros R, Azorin JM, Nazarian B, Roth M, Mazzola-Pomietto P. Reduced brain
activation in euthymic bipolar patients during response inhibition: an event-related fMRI study.
Psychiatry research. 2009a; 173:45–51. [PubMed: 19442494]
Kalanthroff E, Goldfarb L, Usher M, Henik A. Stop interfering: Stroop task conflict independence
from informational conflict and interference. Q J Exp Psychol. 2013; 66:1356–1367.
Kelly AM, Hester R, Murphy K, Javitt DC, Foxe JJ, Garavan H. Prefrontal-subcortical dissociations
underlying inhibitory control revealed by event-related fMRI. The European journal of
neuroscience. 2004; 19:3105–3112. [PubMed: 15182319]

Kenner NM, Mumford JA, Hommer RE, Skup M, Leibenluft E, Poldrack RA. Inhibitory motor control
in response stopping and response switching. J Neurosci. 2010; 30:8512–8518. [PubMed:
20573898]
Kerns JG, Cohen JD, MacDonald AW 3rd, Johnson MK, Stenger VA, Aizenstein H, Carter CS.
Decreased conflict- and error-related activity in the anterior cingulate cortex in subjects with
schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry. 2005; 162:1833–1839. [PubMed: 16199829]
Kerns JG. Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an FMRI study of trial-to-trial
adjustments on the Simon task. Neuroimage. 2006; 33:399–405. [PubMed: 16876434]
Kiehl KA, Liddle PF, Hopfinger JB. Error processing and the rostral anterior cingulate: an event-
related fMRI study. Psychophysiology. 2000; 37:216–223. [PubMed: 10731771]
Kim C, Chung C, Kim J. Multiple cognitive control mechanisms associated with the nature of conflict.
Neuroscience letters. 2010; 476:156–160. [PubMed: 20399838]
Kim C, Johnson NF, Cilles SE, Gold BT. Common and distinct mechanisms of cognitive flexibility in
prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2011a; 31:4771–4779. [PubMed: 21451015]
Kim C, Kroger JK, Kim J. A functional dissociation of conflict processing within anterior cingulate
cortex. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011b; 32:304–312. [PubMed: 21229616]
Kim C, Cilles SE, Johnson NF, Gold BT. Domain general and domain preferential brain regions
associated with different types of task switching: A Meta-Analysis. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012a;
33:130–142. [PubMed: 21391260]
Kim C, Johnson NF, Gold BT. Common and distinct neural mechanisms of attentional switching and
response conflict. Brain research. 2012b; 1469:92–102. [PubMed: 22750124]
King JA, Korb FM, Egner T. Priming of control: implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set.
J Neurosci. 2012; 32:8192–8200. [PubMed: 22699900]
Koechlin E, Summerfield C. An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function.
Trends in cognitive sciences. 2007; 11:229–235. [PubMed: 17475536]
Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response
compatibility - A Model and taxonomy. Psychological Review. 1990; 97:253–270. [PubMed:
2186425]
Kornblum, S.; Stevens, G. Sequential effects of dimensional overlap: findings and issues. In: Prinz,
W.; Homme, B., editors. Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and
Performance XIX. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002. p. 9-54.
Kronhaus DM, Lawrence NS, Williams AM, Frangou S, Brammer MJ, Williams SC, Andrew CM,
Phillips ML. Stroop performance in bipolar disorder: further evidence for abnormalities in the
ventral prefrontal cortex. Bipolar disorders. 2006; 8:28–39. [PubMed: 16411978]
Kurth F, Zilles K, Fox PT, Laird AR, Eickhoff SB. A link between the systems: functional
differentiation and integration within the human insula revealed by meta-analysis. Brain structure
& function. 2010; 214:519–534. [PubMed: 20512376]
Laird AR, Eickhoff SB, Kurth F, Fox PM, Uecker AM, Turner JA, Robinson JL, Lancaster JL, Fox
PT. ALE Meta-Analysis Workflows Via the Brainmap Database: Progress Towards A
Probabilistic Functional Brain Atlas. Frontiers in neuroinformatics. 2009a; 3:23. [PubMed:
19636392]
Laird AR, Eickhoff SB, Li K, Robin DA, Glahn DC, Fox PT. Investigating the functional
heterogeneity of the default mode network using coordinate-based meta-analytic modeling. J
Neurosci. 2009b; 29:14496–14505. [PubMed: 19923283]
Laird AR, McMillan KM, Lancaster JL, Kochunov P, Turkeltaub PE, Pardo JV, Fox PT. A
comparison of label-based review and ALE meta-analysis in the Stroop task. Hum Brain Mapp.
2005; 25:6–21. [PubMed: 15846823]
Lancaster JL, Tordesillas-Gutierrez D, Martinez M, Salinas F, Evans A, Zilles K, Mazziotta JC, Fox
PT. Bias between MNI and Talairach coordinates analyzed using the ICBM-152 brain template.
Langner R, Cieslik EC, Behrwind SD, Roski C, Caspers S, Amunts K, Eickhoff SB. Aging and
response conflict solution: behavioural and functional connectivity changes. Brain structure &
function. 2014
Langner R, Eickhoff SB. Sustaining attention to simple tasks: a meta-analytic review of the neural
mechanisms of vigilant attention. Psychological bulletin. 2013; 139:870–900. [PubMed:
23163491]
Langner R, Kellermann T, Eickhoff SB, Boers F, Chatterjee A, Willmes K, Sturm W. Staying
responsive to the world: Modality-specific and -nonspecific contributions to speeded auditory,
tactile, and visual stimulus detection. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012; 33:398–418. [PubMed: 21438078]
Lee TW, Dolan RJ, Critchley HD. Controlling emotional expression: behavioral and neural correlates
of nonimitative emotional responses. Cereb. Cortex. 2008; 18:104–113. [PubMed: 17483530]
Leech R, Kamourieh S, Beckmann CF, Sharp DJ. Fractionating the default mode network: distinct
contributions of the ventral and dorsal posterior cingulate cortex to cognitive control. J Neurosci.
2011; 31:3217–3224. [PubMed: 21368033]
Leech R, Sharp DJ. The role of the posterior cingulate cortex in cognition and disease. Brain : a
journal of neurology. 2014; 137:12–32. [PubMed: 23869106]
Leung HC, Cai W. Common and differential ventrolateral prefrontal activity during inhibition of hand
and eye movements. J Neurosci. 2007; 27:9893–9900. [PubMed: 17855604]
Levy BJ, Wagner AD. Cognitive control and right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex: reflexive reorienting,
motor inhibition, and action updating. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2011;
1224:40–62. [PubMed: 21486295]
Li CS, Huang C, Constable RT, Sinha R. Imaging response inhibition in a stop-signal task: neural
correlates independent of signal monitoring and post-response processing. J Neurosci. 2006;
26:186–192. [PubMed: 16399686]
Liddle PF, Kiehl KA, Smith AM. Event-related fMRI study of response inhibition. Hum Brain Mapp.
2001; 12:100–109. [PubMed: 11169874]
Liu X, Banich MT, Jacobson BL, Tanabe JL. Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional
control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI.
Liu X, Banich MT, Jacobson BL, Tanabe JL. Functional dissociation of attentional selection within
PFC: response and non-response related aspects of attentional selection as ascertained by fMRI.
Cereb Cortex. 2006; 16:827–834. [PubMed: 16135781]
Logan GD, Schachar RJ, Tannock RT. Impulsivity and inhibitory control. Psychological Science.
1997; 8:60–64.
Lu MT, Preston JB, Strick PL. Interconnections between the prefrontal cortex and the premotor areas
in the frontal lobe. The Journal of comparative neurology. 1994; 341:375–392. [PubMed:
7515081]
Luks TL, Simpson GV, Dale CL, Hough MG. Preparatory allocation of attention and adjustments in
conflict processing. Neuroimage. 2007; 35:949–958. [PubMed: 17258912]
Luppino G, Matelli M, Camarda R, Rizzolatti G. Corticocortical connections of area F3 (SMA-proper)
and area F6 (pre-SMA) in the macaque monkey. The Journal of comparative neurology. 1993;
338:114–140. [PubMed: 7507940]
Maclin EL, Gratton G, Fabiani M. Visual spatial localization conflict: an fMRI study. Neuroreport.
2001; 12:3633–3636. [PubMed: 11733725]
Maguire RP, Broerse A, de Jong BM, Cornelissen FW, Meiners LC, Leenders KL, den Boer JA.
Evidence of enhancement of spatial attention during inhibition of a visuo-motor response.
Manoach DS, Thakkar KN, Cain MS, Polli FE, Edelman JA, Fischl B, Barton JJ. Neural activity is
modulated by trial history: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the effects of a
previous antisaccade. J Neurosci. 2007; 27:1791–1798. [PubMed: 17301186]
Marco-Pallarés J, Camara E, Münte TF, Rodríguez-Fornells A. Neural mechanisms underlying
adaptive actions after slips. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008; 20:1595–1610. [PubMed: 18345985]
Mars RB, Piekema C, Coles MG, Hulstijn W, Toni I. On the programming and reprogramming of
actions. Cereb Cortex. 2007; 17:2972–2979. [PubMed: 17389629]
Matsuda T, Matsuura M, Ohkubo T, Ohkubo H, Matsushima E, Inoue K, Taira M, Kojima T.
Functional MRI mapping of brain activation during visually guided saccades and antisaccades:
cortical and subcortical networks. Psychiatry research. 2004; 131:147–155. [PubMed: 15313521]
Matsumoto E, Misaki M, Miyauchi S. Neural mechanisms of spatial stimulus-response compatibility:
the effect of crossed-hand position. Experimental brain research. 2004; 158:9–17. [PubMed:
15029467]
Matthews SC, Paulus MP, Simmons AN, Nelesen RA, Dimsdale JE. Functional subdivisions within
anterior cingulate cortex and their relationship to autonomic nervous system function.
Mazzola-Pomietto P, Kaladjian A, Azorin JM, Anton JL, Jeanningros R. Bilateral decrease in
ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activation during motor response inhibition in mania. J Psychiatr
Res. 2009; 43:432–441. [PubMed: 18586275]
McCandliss BD, Cohen L, Dehaene S. The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform
gyrus. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2003; 7:293–299. [PubMed: 12860187]
McKenna FP, Sharma D. Reversing the emotional stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: the
role of fast and slow components. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004; 30:382–392. [PubMed:
14979812]
McNab F, Leroux G, Strand F, Thorell L, Bergman S, Klingberg T. Common and unique components
of inhibition and working memory: an fMRI, within-subjects investigation. Neuropsychologia.
2008; 46:2668–2682. [PubMed: 18573510]
Mead LA, Mayer AR, Bobholz JA, Woodley SJ, Cunningham JM, Hammeke TA, Rao SM. Neural
basis of the Stroop interference task: response competition or selective attention? Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2002; 8:735–742. [PubMed: 12240737]
Medford N, Critchley HD. Conjoint activity of anterior insular and anterior cingulate cortex:
awareness and response. Brain structure & function. 2010; 214:535–549. [PubMed: 20512367]
Melcher T, Gruber O. Oddball and incongruity effects during Stroop task performance: a comparative
fMRI study on selective attention. Brain research. 2006; 1121:136–149. [PubMed: 17022954]
Menon V, Adleman NE, White CD, Glover GH, Reiss AL. Error-related brain activation during a Go/
NoGo response inhibition task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2001; 12:131–143. [PubMed: 11170305]
Menon V, Uddin LQ. Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function.
Brain structure & function. 2010; 214:655–667. [PubMed: 20512370]
Milham MP, Banich MT. Anterior cingulate cortex: an fMRI analysis of conflict specificity and
functional differentiation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005; 25:328–335. [PubMed: 15834861]
Milham MP, Banich MT, Webb A, Barad V, Cohen NJ, Wszalek T, Kramer AF. The relative
involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature
of conflict. Brain research. Cognitive brain research. 2001; 12:467–473. [PubMed: 11689307]
Milham MP, Erickson KI, Banich MT, Kramer AF, Webb A, Wszalek T, Cohen NJ. Attentional
control in the aging brain: insights from an fMRI study of the stroop task. Brain Cogn. 2002;
49:277–296. [PubMed: 12139955]
Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual review of
neuroscience. 2001; 24:167–202.
Miller J. The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual
transients, and perceptual load: a search for boundary conditions. Perception & psychophysics.
1991; 49:270–288. [PubMed: 2011464]
Mitchell RL. The BOLD response during Stroop task-like inhibition paradigms: Effects of task
difficulty and task-relevant modality. Brain Cogn. 2005; 59:23–37. [PubMed: 15913867]
Molenberghs P, Mesulam MM, Peeters R, Vandenberghe RR. Remapping attentional priorities:
differential contribution of superior parietal lobule and intraparietal sulcus. Cereb Cortex. 2007;
17:2703–2712. [PubMed: 17264251]
Mostofsky SH, Simmonds DJ. Response inhibition and response selection: two sides of the same coin.
Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2008; 20:751–761. [PubMed: 18201122]
Müller VI, Langner R, Cieslik EC, Rottschy C, Eickhoff SB. Interindividual differences in cognitive
flexibility: influence of gray matter volume, functional connectivity and trait impulsivity. Brain
Struct Funct. in press.
Munakata Y, Herd SA, Chatham CH, Depue BE, Banich MT, O’Reilly RC. A unified framework for
inhibitory control. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2011; 15:453–459. [PubMed: 21889391]
Nachev P, Kennard C, Husain M. Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor
areas. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9:856–869. [PubMed: 18843271]
Nagamatsu LS, Hsu CL, Handy TC, Liu-Ambrose T. Functional neural correlates of reduced
physiological falls risk. Behavioral and brain functions : BBF. 2011; 7:37. [PubMed: 21846395]
Nakao T, Nakagawa A, Yoshiura T, Nakatani E, Nabeyama M, Yoshizato C, Kudoh A, Tada K,
Yoshioka K, Kawamoto M. A functional MRI comparison of patients with obsessive-compulsive
disorder and normal controls during a Chinese character Stroop task. Psychiatry research. 2005;
139:101–114. [PubMed: 15970434]
Nee DE, Wager TD, Jonides J. Interference resolution: insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging
tasks. Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience. 2007; 7:1–17.
Nichols T, Brett M, Andersson J, Wager T, Poline JB. Valid conjunction inference with the minimum
statistic. Neuroimage. 2005; 25:653–660. [PubMed: 15808966]
Norman, D.; Shallice, T. Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour., in. In:
Davidson, RJ.; Schwartz, GE.; Shapiro, D., editors. Consciousness and self regulation. New
York, NY: Plenum Press; 1986. p. 1-18.
Norris DG, Zysset S, Mildner T, Wiggins CJ. An investigation of the value of spin-echo-based fMRI
using a Stroop color-word matching task and EPI at 3 T. Neuroimage. 2002; 15:719–726.
[PubMed: 11848715]
Notebaert W, Soetens E, Melis A. Sequential analysis of a Simon task--evidence for an attention-shift
account. Psychological research. 2001; 65:170–184. [PubMed: 11571912]
O’Driscoll GA, Alpert NM, Matthysse SW, Levy DL, Rauch SL, Holzman PS. Functional
neuroanatomy of antisaccade eye movements investigated with positron emission tomography.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995; 92:925–929. [PubMed: 7846080]
Ochsner KN, Hughes B, Robertson ER, Cooper JC, Gabrieli JD. Neural systems supporting the control
of affective and cognitive conflicts. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2009; 21:1842–1855.
[PubMed: 18823233]
Page LA, Rubia K, Deeley Q, Daly E, Toal F, Mataix-Cols D, Giampietro V, Schmitz N, Murphy DG.
A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of inhibitory control in obsessive-compulsive
disorder. Psychiatry research. 2009; 174:202–209. [PubMed: 19906516]
Palomero-Gallagher N, Vogt BA, Schleicher A, Mayberg HS, Zilles K. Receptor architecture of

human cingulate cortex: evaluation of the four-region neurobiological model. Hum Brain Mapp.
2009; 30:2336–2355. [PubMed: 19034899]
Pardo JV, Pardo PJ, Janer KW, Raichle ME. The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing
selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990; 87:256–
259. [PubMed: 2296583]
Paus T. Primate anterior cingulate cortex: where motor control, drive and cognition interface. Nat Rev
Neurosci. 2001; 2:417–424. [PubMed: 11389475]
Paus T, Petrides M, Evans AC, Meyer E. Role of the human anterior cingulate cortex in the control of
oculomotor, manual, and speech responses: a positron emission tomography study. Journal of
neurophysiology. 1993; 70:453–469. [PubMed: 8410148]
Pearson JM, Heilbronner SR, Barack DL, Hayden BY, Platt ML. Posterior cingulate cortex: adapting
behavior to a changing world. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2011; 15:143–151. [PubMed:
21420893]
Petrides M, Pandya DN. Projections to the frontal cortex from the posterior parietal region in the
rhesus monkey. The Journal of comparative neurology. 1984; 228:105–116. [PubMed: 6480903]
Petrides M, Pandya DN. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: comparative cytoarchitectonic analysis in the
human and the macaque brain and corticocortical connection patterns. The European journal of
neuroscience. 1999; 11:1011–1036. [PubMed: 10103094]
Polk TA, Drake RM, Jonides JJ, Smith MR, Smith EE. Attention enhances the neural processing of
relevant features and suppresses the processing of irrelevant features in humans: a functional
magnetic resonance imaging study of the Stroop task. J. Neurosci. 2008; 17:13786–13792.
[PubMed: 19091969]
Potenza MN, Leung HC, Blumberg HP, Peterson BS, Fulbright RK, Lacadie CM, Skudlarski P, Gore
JC. An FMRI Stroop task study of ventromedial prefrontal cortical function in pathological
gamblers. The American journal of psychiatry. 2003; 160:1990–1994. [PubMed: 14594746]
Power JD, Petersen SE. Control-related systems in the human brain. Current opinion in neurobiology.
2013; 23:223–228. [PubMed: 23347645]
Prakash RS, Erickson KI, Colcombe SJ, Kim JS, Voss MW, Kramer AF. Age-related differences in
the involvement of the prefrontal cortex in attentional control. Brain Cogn. 2009; 71:328–335.
[PubMed: 19699019]
Rahm C, Liberg B, Wiberg-Kristoffersen M, Aspelin P, Msghina M. Rostro-caudal and dorso-ventral
gradients in medial and lateral prefrontal cortex during cognitive control of affective and
cognitive interference. Scandinavian journal of psychology. 2013; 54:66–71. [PubMed:
23316801]
Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL. A default mode of
brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98:676–682. [PubMed: 11209064]
Ravnkilde B, Videbech P, Rosenberg R, Gjedde A, Gade A. Putative tests of frontal lobe function: a
PET-study of brain activation during Stroop’s Test and verbal fluency. Journal of clinical and
experimental neuropsychology. 2002; 24:534–547. [PubMed: 12187466]
Ridderinkhof KR, van den Wildenberg WP, Segalowitz SJ, Carter CS. Neurocognitive mechanisms of
cognitive control: the role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition,
performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain Cogn. 2004; 56:129–140. [PubMed:
15518930]
Roelofs A, van Turennout M, Coles MG. Anterior cingulate cortex activity can be independent of
response conflict in Stroop-like tasks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006; 103:13884–13889.
[PubMed: 16954195]
Roth RM, Koven NS, Randolph JJ, Flashman LA, Pixley HS, Ricketts SM, Wishart HA, Saykin AJ.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging of executive control in bipolar disorder. Neuroreport.
2006; 17:1085–1089. [PubMed: 16837832]
Roth RM, Saykin AJ, Flashman LA, Pixley HS, West JD, Mamourian AC. Event-related functional
magnetic resonance imaging of response inhibition in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol.
Psychiatry. 2007; 62:901–909. [PubMed: 17511967]
Rothmayr C, Sodian B, Hajak G, Dohnel K, Meinhardt J, Sommer M. Common and distinct neural
networks for false-belief reasoning and inhibitory control. Neuroimage. 2011; 56:1705–1713.
[PubMed: 21195194]
Rottschy C, Langner R, Dogan I, Reetz K, Laird AR, Schulz JB, Fox PT, Eickhoff SB. Modelling
neural correlates of working memory: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Neuroimage. 2012;
60:830–846. [PubMed: 22178808]
Rowe JB, Passingham RE. Working memory for location and time: activity in prefrontal area 46
relates to selection rather than maintenance in memory. Neuroimage. 2001; 14:77–86. [PubMed:
11525340]
Rowe JB, Toni I, Josephs O, Frackowiak RS, Passingham RE. The prefrontal cortex: response
selection or maintenance within working memory? Science. 2000; 288:1656–1660. [PubMed:
10834847]
Rubia K, Russell T, Overmeyer S, Brammer MJ, Bullmore ET, Sharma T, Simmons A, Williams SC,
Giampietro V, Andrew CM, Taylor E. Mapping motor inhibition: conjunctive brain activations
across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks. Neuroimage. 2001; 13:250–261. [PubMed:
11162266]
Rubia K, Smith AB, Woolley J, Nosarti C, Heyman I, Taylor E, Brammer M. Progressive increase of
frontostriatal brain activation from childhood to adulthood during event-related tasks of cognitive
control. Hum Brain Mapp. 2006; 27:973–993. [PubMed: 16683265]
Rubia K, Cubillo A, Smith AB, Woolley J, Heyman I, Brammer MJ. Disorder-specific dysfunction on
right inferior prefrontal cortex during two inhibition tasks in boys with attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder compared to boys with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hum Brain Mapp.
2010; 31:287–299. [PubMed: 19777552]

Ruge H, Wolfensteller U. Rapid formation of pragmatic rule representations in the human brain during
instruction-based learning. Cereb Cortex. 2010; 20:1656–1667. [PubMed: 19889712]
Ruff CC, Woodward TS, Laurens KR, Liddle PF. The role of the anterior cingulate cortex in conflict
processing: evidence from reverse stroop interference. Neuroimage. 2001; 14:1150–1158.
[PubMed: 11697946]
Rushworth MF, Johansen-Berg H, Gobel SM, Devlin JT. The left parietal and premotor cortices:
motor attention and selection. Neuroimage. 2003; 20(Suppl 1):S89–S100. [PubMed: 14597301]
Sagaspe P, Schwartz S, Vuilleumier P. Fear and stop: a role for the amygdala in motor inhibition by
emotional signals. Neuroimage. 2011; 55:1825–1835. [PubMed: 21272655]
Sallet J, Mars RB, Noonan MP, Neubert FX, Jbabdi S, O’Reilly JX, Filippini N, Thomas AG,
Rushworth MF. The organization of dorsal frontal cortex in humans and macaques. J Neurosci.
2013; 33:12255–12274. [PubMed: 23884933]
Schachar R, Logan GD, Robaey P, Chen S, Ickowicz A, Barr C. Restraint and cancellation: multiple
inhibition deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of abnormal child
psychology. 2007; 35:229–238. [PubMed: 17351752]
Scheperjans F, Eickhoff SB, Homke L, Mohlberg H, Hermann K, Amunts K, Zilles K. Probabilistic
maps, morphometry, and variability of cytoarchitectonic areas in the human superior parietal
cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2008a; 18:2141–2157. [PubMed: 18245042]

Scheperjans F, Hermann K, Eickhoff SB, Amunts K, Schleicher A, Zilles K. Observer-independent
cytoarchitectonic mapping of the human superior parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2008b; 18:846–
867. [PubMed: 17644831]
Schilbach L, Bzdok D, Timmermans B, Fox PT, Laird AR, Vogeley K, Eickhoff SB. Introspective
minds: using ALE meta-analyses to study commonalities in the neural correlates of emotional
processing, social & unconstrained cognition. Plos One. 2012; 7:e30920. [PubMed: 22319593]
Schmahmann JD, Pandya DN. Anatomic organization of the basilar pontine projections from
prefrontal cortices in rhesus monkey. J Neurosci. 1997; 17:438–458. [PubMed: 8987769]
Schulte T, Muller-Oehring EM, Vinco S, Hoeft F, Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV. Double dissociation
between action-driven and perception-driven conflict resolution invoking anterior versus
posterior brain systems. Neuroimage. 2009; 48:381–390. [PubMed: 19573610]
Schumacher EH, Cole MW, D'Esposito M. Selection and maintenance of stimulus-response rules
during preparation and performance of a spatial choice-reaction task. Brain Res. 2007; 1136:77–
87. [PubMed: 17223091]
Schumacher EH, Elston PA, D’Esposito M. Neural evidence for representation-specific response
selection. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2003; 15:1111–1121. [PubMed: 14709230]
Sebastian A, Gerdes B, Feige B, Kloppel S, Lange T, Philipsen A, Tebartz van Elst L, Lieb K, Tuscher
O. Neural correlates of interference inhibition, action withholding and action cancelation in adult
ADHD. Psychiatry research. 2012; 202:132–141. [PubMed: 22475505]
Sebastian A, Pohl MF, Kloppel S, Feige B, Lange T, Stahl C, Voss A, Klauer KC, Lieb K, Tuscher O.
Disentangling common and specific neural subprocesses of response inhibition. Neuroimage.
2013; 64:601–615. [PubMed: 22986077]
Seok Jeong B, Kwon JS, Yoon Kim S, Lee C, Youn T, Moon CH, Yoon Kim C. Functional imaging
evidence of the relationship between recurrent psychotic episodes and neurodegenerative course
in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2005; 139:219–228. [PubMed: 16054343]
Shallice T, Stuss DT, Picton TW, Alexander MP, Gillingham S. Multiple effects of prefrontal lesions
on task-switching. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2008a; 1
Shallice T, Stuss DT, Picton TW, Alexander MP, Gillingham S. Mapping task switching in frontal
cortex through neuropsychological group studies. Front Neurosci. 2008b; 2:79–85. [PubMed:
18982110]
Sharp DJ, Bonnelle V, De Boissezon X, Beckmann CF, James SG, Patel MC, Mehta MA. Distinct
frontal systems for response inhibition, attentional capture, and error processing. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A. 2010; 107:6106–6111. [PubMed: 20220100]

Silton RL, Heller W, Towers DN, Engels AS, Spielberg JM, Edgar JC, Sass SM, Stewart JL, Sutton
BP, Banich MT, Miller GA. The time course of activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and
anterior cingulate cortex during top-down attentional control. Neuroimage. 2010; 50:1292–1302.
[PubMed: 20035885]
Simmonds DJ, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH. Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI
activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia. 2008;
46:224–232. [PubMed: 17850833]
Simon, JR. The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In: Proctor,
RW.; Reeve, TG., editors. Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. North
Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 1990. p. 31-86.
Sommer M, Hajak G, Dohnel K, Meinhardt J, Muller JL. Emotion-dependent modulation of
interference processes: an fMRI study. Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis. 2008; 68:193–203.
[PubMed: 18511955]
Sridharan D, Levitin DJ, Menon V. A critical role for the right fronto-insular cortex in switching
between central-executive and default-mode networks. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105:12569–
12574.
Steel C, Haworth EJ, Peters E, Hemsley DR, Sharma T, Gray JA, Pickering A, Gregory L, Simmons
A, Bullmore ET, Williams SC. Neuroimaging correlates of negative priming. Neuroreport. 2001;
12:3619–3624. [PubMed: 11733723]

Stoffer TH, Yakin AR. The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect.
Psychological research. 1994; 56:151–162. [PubMed: 8008777]
Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology. 1935;
18:643–662.
Stuss DT. Frontal lobes and attention: processes and networks, fractionation and integration. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2006; 12:261–271. [PubMed: 16573859]
Stuss DT, Alexander MP. Is there a dysexecutive syndrome? Philos T R Soc B. 2007; 362:901–915.
Stuss DT. Functions of the frontal lobes: relation to executive functions. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2011; 17:759–765. [PubMed: 21729406]
Stuss DT, Shallice T, Alexander MP, Picton TW. A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional
functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1995; 769:191–211. [PubMed:
8595026]
Sweeney JA, Mintun MA, Kwee S, Wiseman MB, Brown DL, Rosenberg DR, Carl JR. Positron
emission tomography study of voluntary saccadic eye movements and spatial working memory.
Journal of neurophysiology. 1996; 75:454–468. [PubMed: 8822570]
Swick D, Ashley V, Turken U. Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical?
Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks. Neuroimage. 2011; 56:1655–1665.
[PubMed: 21376819]
Sylvester CY, Wager TD, Lacey SC, Hernandez L, Nichols TE, Smith EE, Jonides J. Switching
attention and resolving interference: fMRI measures of executive functions. Neuropsychologia.
2003; 41:357–370. [PubMed: 12457760]
Tabu H, Mima T, Aso T, Takahashi R, Fukuyama H. Functional relevance of pre-supplementary motor
areas for the choice to stop during Stop signal task. Neuroscience research. 2011; 70:277–284.
[PubMed: 21440014]
Tabu H, Mima T, Aso T, Takahashi R, Fukuyama H. Common inhibitory prefrontal activation during
inhibition of hand and foot responses. Neuroimage. 2012; 59:3373–3378. [PubMed: 22079449]
Taylor SF, Kornblum S, Lauber EJ, Minoshima S, Koeppe RA. Isolation of specific interference
processing in the Stroop task: PET activation studies. Neuroimage. 1997; 6:81–92. [PubMed:
9299382]
Taylor SF, Kornblum S, Minoshima S, Oliver LM, Koeppe RA. Changes in medial cortical blood flow
with a stimulus-response compatibility task. Neuropsychologia. 1994; 32:249–255. [PubMed:
8190248]
Turkeltaub PE, Eden GF, Jones KM, Zeffiro TA. Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of
single-word reading: method and validation. Neuroimage. 2002; 16:765–780. [PubMed:

12169260]
Turkeltaub PE, Eickhoff SB, Laird AR, Fox M, Wiener M, Fox P. Minimizing within-experiment and
within-group effects in Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analyses. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;
33:1–13. [PubMed: 21305667]
Ullsperger M, von Cramon DY. Subprocesses of performance monitoring: a dissociation of error
processing and response competition revealed by event-related fMRI and ERPs. Neuroimage.
2001; 14:1387–1401. [PubMed: 11707094]
van Veen V, Cohen JD, Botvinick MM, Stenger VA, Carter CS. Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict
monitoring, and levels of processing. Neuroimage. 2001; 14:1302–1308. [PubMed: 11707086]
Vandenberghe R, Geeraerts S, Molenberghs P, Lafosse C, Vandenbulcke M, Peeters K, Peeters R, Van
Hecke P, Orban GA. Attentional responses to unattended stimuli in human parietal cortex.
Brain : a journal of neurology. 2005; 128:2843–2857. [PubMed: 15857928]
Vandenberghe R, Gillebert CR. Dissociations between spatial-attentional processes within parietal
cortex: insights from hybrid spatial cueing and change detection paradigms. Frontiers in human
neuroscience. 2013; 7:366. [PubMed: 23882202]
Vandenberghe R, Gitelman DR, Parrish TB, Mesulam MM. Functional specificity of superior parietal
mediation of spatial shifting. Neuroimage. 2001; 14:661–673. [PubMed: 11506539]
Verbruggen F, Aron AR, Stevens MA, Chambers CD. Theta burst stimulation dissociates attention and
action updating in human inferior frontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107:13966–
13971. [PubMed: 20631303]
Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the
go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of experimental psychology. General. 2008;
137:649–672.
Videbech P, Ravnkilde B, Gammelgaard L, Egander A, Clemmensen K, Rasmussen NA, Gjedde A,
Rosenberg R. The Danish PET/depression project: performance on Stroop’s test linked to white
matter lesions in the brain. Psychiatry research. 2004; 130:117–130. [PubMed: 15033182]
Vinckier F, Dehaene S, Jobert A, Dubus JP, Sigman M, Cohen L. Hierarchical coding of letter strings
in the ventral stream: dissecting the inner organization of the visual word-form system. Neuron.
2007; 55:143–156. [PubMed: 17610823]
Vogt BA. Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;
6:533–544. [PubMed: 15995724]
Vogt, BA.; Hof, PR.; Vogt, LJ. Cingulate Gyrus. In: Paxinos, G.; Mai, JK., editors. The Human
Nervous System. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. p. 915-949.
Vogt BA, Vogt L, Laureys S. Cytology and functionally correlated circuits of human posterior
cingulate areas. Neuroimage. 2006; 29:452–466. [PubMed: 16140550]

Wager TD, Sylvester CY, Lacey SC, Nee DE, Franklin M, Jonides J. Common and unique
components of response inhibition revealed by fMRI. Neuroimage. 2005; 27:323–340. [PubMed:
16019232]
Walther S, Goya-Maldonado R, Stippich C, Weisbrod M, Kaiser S. A supramodal network for
response inhibition. Neuroreport. 2010; 21:191–195. [PubMed: 20084035]
Watanabe J, Sugiura M, Sato K, Sato Y, Maeda Y, Matsue Y, Fukuda H, Kawashima R. The human
prefrontal and parietal association cortices are involved in NO-GO performances: an event-
related fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2002; 17:1207–1216. [PubMed: 12414261]
Wittfoth M, Buck D, Fahle M, Herrmann M. Comparison of two Simon tasks: neuronal correlates of
conflict resolution based on coherent motion perception. Neuroimage. 2006; 32:921–929.
[PubMed: 16677831]
Wittfoth M, Kustermann E, Fahle M, Herrmann M. The influence of response conflict on error
processing: evidence from event-related fMRI. Brain research. 2008; 1194:118–129. [PubMed:
18177843]
Xue G, Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Common neural substrates for inhibition of spoken and manual
responses. Cereb Cortex. 2008; 18:1923–1932. [PubMed: 18245044]
Ye Z, Zhou X. Conflict control during sentence comprehension: fMRI evidence. Neuroimage. 2009;
48:280–290. [PubMed: 19540923]

Zeischka P, Deroost N, Maetens K, Soetens E. Reduced congruency effects only for repeated spatial
irrelevant information. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2010; 22:1137–1167.
Zheng D, Oka T, Bokura H, Yamaguchi S. The key locus of common response inhibition network for
no-go and stop signals. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2008; 20:1434–1442. [PubMed:
18303978]
Zhu DC, Zacks RT, Slade JM. Brain activation during interference resolution in young and older
adults: an fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2010; 50:810–817. [PubMed: 20045067]
Zhu Z, Feng G, Zhang JX, Li G, Li H, Wang S. The role of the left prefrontal cortex in sentence-level
semantic integration. Neuroimage. 2013; 76:325–331. [PubMed: 23507386]
Zoccatelli G, Beltramello A, Alessandrini F, Pizzini FB, Tassinari G. Word and position interference
in stroop tasks: a behavioral and fMRI study. Experimental brain research. 2010; 207:139–147.
[PubMed: 20924569]
Zurawska Vel Grajewska B, Sim EJ, Hoenig K, Herrnberger B, Kiefer M. Mechanisms underlying
flexible adaptation of cognitive control: behavioral and neuroimaging evidence in a flanker task.
Brain research. 2011; 1421:52–65. [PubMed: 21981803]
Zysset S, Muller K, Lohmann G, von Cramon DY. Color-word matching stroop task: separating
interference and response conflict. Neuroimage. 2001; 13:29–36. [PubMed: 11133306]
Zysset S, Schroeter ML, Neumann J, von Cramon DY. Stroop interference, hemodynamic response
and aging: an event-related fMRI study. Neurobiology of aging. 2007; 28:937–946. [PubMed:
21887888]
Highlights
• We delineated the key regions mediating supervisory attentional control
• Right anterior insula plays a central role in task set monitoring
• Right inferior frontal junction continuously reactivates the relevant task rule
• Posterior dorsomedial frontal cortex mediates energization of task schemata

Figure 1.
Foci of brain activity showing significant convergence of activity across all experiments
included (cluster-level p<0.05, family-wise error-corrected for multiple comparisons, cluster
forming threshold p<0.001 at voxel level).
Figure 2.
Foci of brain activity showing significant convergence of activity for the four paradigm
classes separately, the (A) Stroop, (B) spatial interference, (C) stop-signal and the (D)
go/no-go task, (cluster-level p<0.05, family-wise error-corrected for multiple comparisons,
cluster forming threshold p<0.001 at voxel level).
Figure 3.
Performing a minimum conjunction analysis across the four paradigm classes (Stroop,
spatial interference, stop-signal and go/no-go task) revealed the right anterior insula and the
right inferior frontal junction to be the only two regions showing conjoint convergence of
activity across all four task types.

Figure 4.
Right aI, right IFJ as well as anterior mid-cingulate cortex and preSMA were conjointly
involved in the Stroop, spatial interference and stop-signal tasks as revealed by conjunction
analysis.

NIH Public Access: Three Key Regions For Supervisory Attentional Control: Evidence From Neuroimaging Meta-Analyses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIH Public Access: Three Key Regions For Supervisory Attentional Control: Evidence From Neuroimaging Meta-Analyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIH Public Access

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015 January ; 0: 22–34. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.11.003.

Three key regions for supervisory attentional control: Evidence

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

inhibition of actions, such as when a prepotent response has to be suppressed in favour of a

predominant but inadequate response tendencies specifically relies on different sub-

predominant response tendency and the context-dependent initiation of an appropriate

In go/no-go and stop-signal tasks, an increased automatic tendency to initiate a particular

Summarizing, we investigated four subcategories of cognitive action control. Action

inhibition of an already initiated motor response, which can hence be conceptualized as

response (compatible trials) (Eriksen, 1974; Miller, 1991).

Stop-signal task—Here, participants are required to make speeded choice reactions to

2.2. Selection criteria for the experiments included in the meta-analyses

pharmacological or non-invasive manipulations such as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Based on these criteria, 62 experiments investigating the Stroop task, 32 experiments

coordinates using a linear transformation (Lancaster et al., 2007).

In summary, we investigated four different instances of cognitive action control: 1) action

2.3 Activation Likelihood Estimation algorithm

to identify areas showing a convergence of reported coordinates across experiments that is

All results were anatomically labelled by reference to probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps

Meta-analyses for the individual task types

Spatial interference task—Investigating consistent activation across the experiments

Stop-Signal task—Performing a meta-analysis across experiments contrasting stop vs go

Go/no-go task—Performing a meta-analysis across experiments contrasting no-go vs go

4.1 Main effect of all included experiments

revealed consistent activity in a bilateral frontoparietal network consisting of the aI and

4.2 Conjunction analyses

implementation of a non-dominant, context-dependent behaviour against a competing

The insula is a functionally heterogeneous region, hypothesized to exert an integrative role

attentional resources on task-relevant information and adapting behavioural plans according

4.3 Individual task analyses

colour are incongruent.

4.3.2 Spatial interference tasks—In the spatial interference tasks, convergence of

perform adequately and initiate a response to a non-dominant spatial location. Consistent

attention as well as response intentions to adequately respond in a spatially incongruent

Interestingly, the present meta-analysis revealed consistent involvement of area 7A

inappropriate responses. Biol Psychiatry. 2011; 69:e55–e68. [PubMed: 20932513]

variability: evidence from a response inhibition task. Neuropsychologia. 2004; 42:1910–1916.

resonance imaging. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2004; 16:609–620. [PubMed: 15165351]

cues. Brain research. 2009; 1261:20–28. [PubMed: 19401178]

task. Perception Psychophysics. 1974; 16:143–149.

Gillebert CR, Caspari N, Wagemans J, Peeters R, Dupont P, Vandenberghe R. Spatial stimulus

Gillebert CR, Mantini D, Peeters R, Dupont P, Vandenberghe R. Cytoarchitectonic mapping of

Hum Brain Mapp. 2011; 32:1811–1824. [PubMed: 21140434]

the indirect (fronto-striatal-pallidal) fronto-basal ganglia pathways during response inhibition. J

uncertainty implicate the temporo-parietal junction in the prediction of forthcoming motor

neuroscience. 2004; 19:3105–3112. [PubMed: 15182319]

Palomero-Gallagher N, Vogt BA, Schleicher A, Mayberg HS, Zilles K. Receptor architecture of

2010; 31:287–299. [PubMed: 19777552]

cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2008a; 18:2141–2157. [PubMed: 18245042]

Sci U S A. 2010; 107:6106–6111. [PubMed: 20220100]

12:3619–3624. [PubMed: 11733723]

single-word reading: method and validation. Neuroimage. 2002; 16:765–780. [PubMed:

cingulate areas. Neuroimage. 2006; 29:452–466. [PubMed: 16140550]

48:280–290. [PubMed: 19540923]

• Right anterior insula plays a central role in task set monitoring

• Posterior dorsomedial frontal cortex mediates energization of task schemata

activity across all four task types.

You might also like