Dissociation of response conflict, attentional selection, and expectancy with functional magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

Two different attentional networks have been associated with visuospatial attention and conflict resolution. In most situations either one of the two networks is active or both are increased in activity together. By using functional magnetic resonance imaging and a flanker task, we show conditions in which one network (anterior attention system) is increased in activity whereas the other (visuospatial attention system) is reduced, showing that attentional conflict and selection are separate aspects of attention. Further, we distinguish between neural systems involved in different forms of conflict. Specifically, we dissociate patterns of activity in the basal ganglia and insula cortex during simple violations in expectancies (i.e., sudden changes in the frequency of an event) from patterns of activity in the anterior attention system specifically correlated with response conflict as evidenced by longer response latencies and more errors. These data provide a systems-level approach in understanding integrated attentional networks.

Neural mechanisms of observational learning

“…Small action prediction errors allow the learning participant to reconfirm that they are engaging in the correct strategy without observing the outcome of the other player. The region of DLPFC where activity correlates most strongly with the expected action prediction error signal has previously been shown to respond to other types of prediction error (15), to conflict (16), and to trials that violate an expectancy that was learned from previous trials (17). The present finding also fits well with previous research implicating the DLPFC in action selection (18).…”

Theta burst magnetic stimulation over the pre-supplementary motor area improves motor inhibition

“…It is not surprising that brain networks involved in inhibition, namely the pre-SMA and the STN, also operate during conflict resolution and switching, as shown previously [4,7], although other studies show greater anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activity in conflict resolution [55,56]. In fact, Casey and colleagues [57] use the term the 'anterior system' involving the ACC, and considered this responsible for conflict resolution while performing the flanker interference task.…”

Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update

“…ACC activation has also been observed in various versions of the flanker task [3,[8][9][10][11][12] (Box 2), in the Simon task [13], in the global-local paradigm [14,15], and in the go/no-go paradigm [16][17][18], as well as in other response override tasks [1,[18][19][20].…”

“…In each study, two conditions of ACC activation were compared: one involving high response conflict and weak top-down control, and one involving low conflict and a high level of top-down control. In two studies involving the Stroop task [38,39] (Box 1) and three using the flanker task [3,8,9] (Box 2), ACC activation was found to be greater in high-conflict/low-control trials, suggesting that it is more closely tied to conflict detection than to top-down control.…”

“…In neuroimaging studies of the flanker task, greater ACC activation has been observed on incompatible than compatible trials [3,[8][9][10]12], a finding interpreted by the conflict-monitoring theory as a signal of conflict. Botvinick et al [4] simulated this imaging result by adding a conflict-monitoring unit to the basic flanker task model (blue elements in Figure Ia).…”