2002
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1326
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dissociable Executive Functions in the Dynamic Control of Behavior: Inhibition, Error Detection, and Correction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

79
651
4
4

Year Published

2004
2004
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 881 publications
(741 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
79
651
4
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The ACC system has been implicated in relatively faster and urgent inhibition, whereas the frontal-parietal system is involved in more deliberate and controlled inhibition (Garavan et al, 2002). Our results in the healthy controls support the segregation of these prefrontal regions in executive control by showing regional specificity in activation patterns to targets following sad distraction across the left ACC/insula and the right IFG/bilateral MFG.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The ACC system has been implicated in relatively faster and urgent inhibition, whereas the frontal-parietal system is involved in more deliberate and controlled inhibition (Garavan et al, 2002). Our results in the healthy controls support the segregation of these prefrontal regions in executive control by showing regional specificity in activation patterns to targets following sad distraction across the left ACC/insula and the right IFG/bilateral MFG.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Despite a decline in performance, participants were able to successfully inhibit a prepotent response on the majority of No-go trials, and during these inhibitions activation was seen in prefrontal, parietal (predominantly right hemisphere), midline (ACC and pre-SMA), and subcortical regions, consistent with the findings of previous Go/No-go tasks (de Zubicaray et al, 2000;Garavan et al, 2002;Konishi et al, 1999;Liddle et al, 2001;Rubia et al, 2003;Watanabe et al, 2002). Given this performance, we examined further how this network of regions successfully responded to increasing WM demand.…”
Section: Interactions Between Working Memory and Inhibitionsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Successfully withholding a response to the No-go trials is argued to represent inhibitory control over a prepotent response, typically resulting in activation of prefrontal, parietal (predominantly right hemisphere), and midline (ACC and pre-SMA) regions (de Zubicaray et al, 2000;Garavan et al, 2002;Konishi et al, 1999;Liddle et al, 2001;Rubia et al, 2003;Watanabe et al, 2002). In line with previous behavioral studies, we predicted that increasing WM load would negatively influence inhibitory performance; however, it was unclear from previous literature what influence WM load would have on this event-related inhibitory activation response.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…The cingulate gyrus, an inhibitory brain region (76), was consistently activated during control task periods in all 3 paradigms in this investigation. A possible interpretation of the decreased negative activation in the childhoodonset SLE patients would be that there is less suppression of brain activity during the control tasks of the paradigms.…”
Section: Fmri In Childhood-onset Sle 4159mentioning
confidence: 55%