Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32581754›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020

Neural Dynamics of Cognitive Control in Various Types of Incongruence.

Liufang Xie, Bihua Cao, Zixia Li, Fuhong Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Liufang XieSchool of Psychology, JiangXi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
Bihua CaoSchool of Psychology, JiangXi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
Zixia LiSchool of Psychology, JiangXi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
Fuhong LiSchool of Psychology, JiangXi Normal University, Nanchang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conflict-control is a core function of cognitive control. Although numerous studies have considered cognitive control to be domain-general, the shared and distinct brain responses to different types of incongruence or conflict remain unclear. Using a hybrid flanker task, the present study explored the temporal dynamics of brain activation to three types of incongruence: flanker interference, rule-based response switch (rule-switch), and action-based response switch (response-alternation). The results showed that: (1) all three types of incongruence evoked larger N2 amplitudes than the congruent condition in the frontal region, with the N2 amplitudes and topographical distribution of the N2 effect differing between the different types of incongruence; and (2) in the P300 time window, the flanker interference condition yielded the most delayed P300 latency, whereas the rule-switch and response-alternation conditions yielded smaller P300 amplitudes with a longer interval from P300 peak to a keypress. These findings suggest that different types of incongruence are first monitored similarly by the cognitive control system and then resolved differently.

Indexed as

cognitive controlflanker taskN2P300response switchingrule switching

Identifiers

PMID32581754
PMCPMC7291779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.