ArticleScientific reports2026
Distinguishing between response conflict and error expectancy in inhibitory error processing: the role of the presupplementary motor cortex.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Error monitoring is a critical cognitive function that enables the detection of deviations from intended goals and the initiation of corrective actions. Two influential theoretical frameworks propose distinct mechanisms underlying this process: conflict detection and reinforcement learning. The conflict detection account emphasizes the recognition of incompatible response tendencies, while reinforcement learning models focus on predicting error likelihood and updating expectations based on outcomes. Disentangling the contributions of these mechanisms remains challenging, as errors frequently involve both heightened response conflict and unexpected results. The present study aimed to differentiate these mechanisms using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in the stop-signal task. Forty-four participants completed the task, during which response conflict intensity (reflected in stop-signal delay, SSD) and error expectancy (indexed by stop-response interval, SRI) were assessed. fMRI data were analyzed to investigate how these measures relate to neural activity associated with error processing. The results revealed that both SSD and SRI influenced post-error slowing. However, only SSD—reflecting response conflict—was significantly associated with error-related brain activity, particularly in the pre-supplementary motor area and superior frontal gyrus. These findings support the conflict detection theory, emphasizing the central role of response conflict in the neural mechanisms underlying inhibitory control failures.
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.