Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38220034›Full record

SynthesisNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2024

The effect of task complexity on the neural network for response inhibition: An ALE meta-analysis.

Taraneh Aziz-Safaie, Veronika I Müller, Robert Langner, Simon B Eickhoff, Edna C Cieslik

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Effects of Lateralization of Language on Cognition Among Left-Handers.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Taraneh Aziz-SafaieInstitute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Germany. Electronic address: Taraneh.Aziz-Safaie@uni-duesseldorf.de.
Veronika I MüllerInstitute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Robert LangnerInstitute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Simon B EickhoffInstitute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Germany.
Edna C CieslikInstitute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Germany. Electronic address: e.cieslik@fz-juelich.de.

Funding

Meta-anaylsis in human brain mappingR01MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2006 to 2024
$10.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Response inhibition is classically investigated using the go/no-go (GNGT) and stop-signal task (SST), which conceptually measure different subprocesses of inhibition. Further, different task versions with varying levels of additional executive control demands exist, making it difficult to identify the core neural correlates of response inhibition independent of variations in task complexity. Using neuroimaging meta-analyses, we show that a divergent pattern of regions is consistently involved in the GNGT versus SST, arguing for different mechanisms involved when performing the two tasks. Further, for the GNGT a strong effect of task complexity was found, with regions of the multiple demand network (MDN) consistently involved particularly in the complex GNGT. In contrast, both standard and complex SST recruited the MDN to a similar degree. These results complement behavioral evidence suggesting that inhibitory control becomes automatic after some practice and is performed without input of higher control regions in the classic, standard GNGT, but continues to be implemented in a top-down controlled fashion in the SST.

Indexed as

Brain MappingMagnetic Resonance ImagingExecutive FunctionHumansInhibition, PsychologicalNeural Networks, ComputerReaction TimeAction cancellationAction withholdingActivation likelihood estimation meta-analysisAutomatic inhibitionControlled inhibitionGo/no-go taskMultiple-demand networkStop-signal taskTask complexity

Identifiers

PMID38220034
PMCPMC11130604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.