ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
A thin line between conflict and reaction time effects on EEG and fMRI brain signals.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oscillatory signatures of monitoring and anticipatory strategies for probabilistic vs deterministic cues.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Orthogonal neural encoding of targets and distractors supports multivariate cognitive control.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Common and distinct BOLD correlates of Simon and flanker conflicts which can(not) be reduced to time-on-task effects.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The last two decades of electrophysiological and neuroimaging research converged that the activity in the medial frontal cortex plays a pivotal role in cognitive control processes. Notably, the midfrontal theta (MFT) oscillatory EEG power as well as activity in the anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC) or pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA) were consistently proclaimed as markers of conflict processing. However, these brain signals are strongly correlated with response time (RT) variability in various non-conflict tasks, which overshadows the true nature of their involvement. Our previous study (Beldzik et al., 2022) successfully identified these brain signals during a simultaneous EEG-fMRI experiment implementing Stroop and Simon tasks. Based on the assumption that overcoming the habitual prepotent response during high interference trials requires additional neural resources beyond simple decision variable represented in RTs, here we aim to verify if these markers exhibit a congruency effect beyond RT variations. Furthermore, we explored if these brain signals represent either proactive or reactive cognitive control mechanisms by investigating two widely known behavioral phenomena observed in conflict tasks: proportion congruency and congruency sequence effects. The results revealed partially null findings for MFT activity, yet a distinct cognitive control specialization between aMCC and preSMA. Our study provides novel evidence that the former is involved in proactive control mechanisms, possibly contingency learning, whereas the latter reflects reactive control mechanisms by exhibiting a strong congruency effect regardless of RT variation and responding to adaptive behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.