Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800398›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

A thin line between conflict and reaction time effects on EEG and fMRI brain signals.

Ewa Beldzik, Markus Ullsperger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Ewa BeldzikInstitute of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
Markus UllspergerInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

conflictdorsomedial prefrontal cortexproactive controlreactive controlresponse timestheta

Identifiers

PMID40800398
PMCPMC12247625

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.