Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33262369›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Control of response interference: caudate nucleus contributes to selective inhibition.

Claudia C Schmidt, David C Timpert, Isabel Arend, Simone Vossel, Gereon R Fink, Avishai Henik, Peter H Weiss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The yes-no reversal phenomenon in patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Atrophy in subcortical gray matter in adult patients with moyamoya disease.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Claudia C SchmidtCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Research Centre Juelich, Juelich, Germany. c.schmidt@fz-juelich.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1296-577X
David C TimpertCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Research Centre Juelich, Juelich, Germany.
Isabel ArendDepartment of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Simone VosselCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Research Centre Juelich, Juelich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6351-8849
Gereon R FinkCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Research Centre Juelich, Juelich, Germany.
Avishai HenikDepartment of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Peter H WeissCognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Research Centre Juelich, Juelich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5230-9080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the role of cortical regions in cognitive control processes is well accepted, the contribution of subcortical structures (e.g., the striatum), especially to the control of response interference, remains controversial. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the cortical and particularly subcortical neural mechanisms of response interference control (including selective inhibition). Thirteen healthy young participants underwent event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing a unimanual version of the Simon task. In this task, successful performance required the resolution of stimulus-response conflicts in incongruent trials by selectively inhibiting interfering response tendencies. The behavioral results show an asymmetrical Simon effect that was more pronounced in the contralateral hemifield. Contrasting incongruent trials with congruent trials (i.e., the overall Simon effect) significantly activated clusters in the right anterior cingulate cortex, the right posterior insula, and the caudate nucleus bilaterally. Furthermore, a region of interest analysis based on previous patient studies revealed that activation in the bilateral caudate nucleus significantly co-varied with a parameter of selective inhibition derived from distributional analyses of response times. Our results corroborate the notion that the cognitive control of response interference is supported by a fronto-striatal circuitry, with a functional contribution of the caudate nucleus to the selective inhibition of interfering response tendencies.

Indexed as

AdultBehaviorBrain MappingCaudate NucleusFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeural InhibitionReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID33262369
PMCPMC7708449

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.