Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update

Botvinick, Matthew; Cohen, Jonathan D.; Carter, Cameron S.

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003

Cited by 3,057 publications

(2,584 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

200

Mentioning

2,352

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The control of task-irrelevant distracters on target processing has been consistently associated with the fronto-parietal network (Kastner & Ungerleider, 2000;Marois et al, 2004;Moran & Desimone, 1985) as well as the ACC (Botvinick et al, 2004;Cohen et al, 2000;Kastner & Ungerleider, 2000;Marois et al, 2000;). Previous studies investigating the response to emotional distraction have also identified the recruitment of frontal, parietal and cingulate cortex (Bishop et al, 2004;Blair et al, 2007;Etkin et al, 2006;Mitchell et al 2007;Vuilleumier, et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common regions of dorsal anterior cingulate and prefrontal–parietal cortices provide attentional control of distracters varying in emotionality and visibility

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Top-down attentional control is necessary to ensure successful task performance in the presence of distracters. Lateral prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex have been previously implicated in top-down attentional control. However, it is unclear whether these regions are engaged independent of distracter type or whether, as has been suggested for anterior cingulate cortex, different regions provide attentional control over emotional versus other forms of salient distracter. In the current task, subjects viewed targets that were preceded by distracters that varied in both emotionality and visibility. We found that behaviorally, the presence of preceding distracters significantly interfered with target judgment. At the neural level, increases in the emotional and visual saliency of distracters were both associated with increased activity in proximal regions of prefrontal, parietal and cingulate cortex. Moreover, a conjunction analysis indicated considerable overlap in the regions of prefrontal, parietal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex responding to distracters of increased emotionality and visibility.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common regions of dorsal anterior cingulate and prefrontal–parietal cortices provide attentional control of distracters varying in emotionality and visibility

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent neuroimaging studies have shown support for this distinction. Error detection has been linked to activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (i.e., "conflict monitoring"), whereas correction has been associated with the lateral pre-frontal cortex and0or the basal ganglia (Botvinick et al, 2004;Gehring & Knight, 2000). Reason (1990) has described the role of auto-control processes and the environment in error detection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, we predicted that error detection and correction would necessitate intact executive functions. However, because error detection and correction have been associated with distinct prefrontal systems (Botvinick et al, 2004;Gehring & Knight, 2000), we predicted that these constructs may be related to different measures of executive functioning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error detection and correction patterns in dementia: A breakdown of error monitoring processes and their neuropsychological correlates

Bettcher

Giovannetti

Macmullen

et al. 2008

J. Inter. Neuropsych. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error monitoring is critical to an individual's ability to function autonomously. This study characterized error detection and correction behaviors within the service of everyday tasks in individuals with dementia. Also, the impact of neuropsychological functioning on error detection and correction was examined. Fifty-three participants diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD) were administered a neuropsychological protocol and the Naturalistic Action Test, which requires performance of three everyday tasks. Error detection, correction, and the point at which correction occurred (i.e., microslip-before the error was completed, immediate-just after the error was made, delayed-after performing other task steps) was coded. Dementia participants detected 32.7% of their errors and corrected 75.8% of detected errors. Participants were more likely to engage in microslips than delayed corrections. Tests of executive control and language predicted detection and correction variables; moreover, detection and correction were each related to different aspects of executive functioning. Microslips were related to naming ability. AD and VaD patients did not differ on detection0correction variables, and regression analyses indicated that dementia severity and memory abilities were unrelated to detection0correction. The results specify the error monitoring deficits in AD and VaD and have implications for improving functional abilities in dementia. (JINS, 2008, 14, 199-208.)

show abstract

“…The frontal regions that showed differential FC between GAD and HCs during high error feedback trials (i.e., dACC, sgACC, AI, DLPFC), are involved in salience identification, error monitoring and emotional control (Botvinick et al., 2004; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Ochsner et al., 2012; Uddin, 2015). Decreased PFC‐amygdala connectivity is perhaps the most consistent FC abnormality reported for these regions in GAD (Hilbert et al., 2014; Mochcovitch et al., 2014; Taylor & Whalen, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), dorsal, rostral, and subcallosal (including subgenual) ACC (dACC, rACC, sgACC), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) are engaged during DM under uncertainty (Krain, Wilson, Arbuckle, Castellanos, & Milham, 2006); dACC, rACC, sgACC, and AI are activated during salience processing and error monitoring (Barch et al., 2001; Botvinick, Cohen, & Carter, 2004; Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, & Snyder, 2001; Menon & Uddin, 2010; Uddin, 2015; Ullsperger & von Cramon, 2001); and ACC, AI and amygdala are involved in emotion regulation (Ochsner, Silvers, & Buhle, 2012). Importantly, coupling of these regions comprises proposed neural networks underlying the cognitive‐emotional processes involved in DM (Khani & Rainer, 2016; Rushworth, Kolling, Sallet, & Mars, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural functional architecture and modulation during decision making under uncertainty in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRecent evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) might be effective in treating generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Cognitive models of GAD highlight the role of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) in precipitating and maintaining worry, and it has been hypothesized that patients with GAD exhibit decision‐making deficits under uncertain conditions. Improving understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive deficits associated with IU may lead to the identification of novel rTMS treatment targets and optimization of treatment parameters. The current report describes two interrelated studies designed to identify and verify a potential neural target for rTMS treatment of GAD.MethodsStudy I explored the integrity of prefrontal cortex (PFC) and amygdala neural networks, which underlie decision making under conditions of uncertainty, in GAD. Individuals diagnosed with GAD (n = 31) and healthy controls (n = 20) completed a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) gambling task that manipulated uncertainty using high versus low error rates. In a subsequent randomized‐controlled trial (Study II), a subset of the GAD sample (n = 16) completed the fMRI gambling task again after 30 sessions of active versus sham rTMS (1 Hz, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) to investigate the modulation of functional networks and symptoms.ResultsIn Study I, participants with GAD demonstrated impairments in PFC‐PFC and PFC‐amygdala functional connectivity (FC) mostly during the high uncertainty condition. In Study II, one region of interest pair, dorsal anterior cingulate (ACC) – subgenual ACC, showed “normalization” of FC following active, but not sham, rTMS, and neural changes were associated with improvement in worry symptoms.ConclusionsThese results outline a possible treatment mechanism of rTMS in GAD, and pave the way for future studies of treatment optimization.

show abstract

Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update

Cited by 3,057 publications

References 80 publications

Common regions of dorsal anterior cingulate and prefrontal–parietal cortices provide attentional control of distracters varying in emotionality and visibility

Common regions of dorsal anterior cingulate and prefrontal–parietal cortices provide attentional control of distracters varying in emotionality and visibility

Error detection and correction patterns in dementia: A breakdown of error monitoring processes and their neuropsychological correlates

Neural functional architecture and modulation during decision making under uncertainty in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About