Inhibition of ongoing responses following frontal, nonfrontal, and basal ganglia lesions.

Rieger, Martina; Gauggel, Siegfried; Burmeister, Katja

doi:10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.272

Cited by 151 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Activity here may also reflect conflict monitoring processes given the competing Go and NoGo response demands activated on NoGo trials (Botvinick et al, 2001). The activation observed in subcortical regions is consistent with an increasing appreciation of subcortical involvement in cognitive control and, particularly, in inhibitory control (Middleton and Strick, 2000;Rieger et al, 2003;Saint-Cyr, 2003).…”

Section: Split-group Comparisonssupporting

confidence: 51%

Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We combined the data of five event-related fMRI studies of response inhibition. The reanalysis (n = 71) revealed response inhibition to be accomplished by a largely right hemisphere network of prefrontal, parietal, subcortical and midline regions, with converging evidence pointing to the particular importance of the right frontal operculum.Functional differences were observed between the sexes with greater activity in females in many of these cortical regions. Despite the relatively narrow age range (18-46), cortical activity, on the whole, tended to increase with age, echoing a pattern of functional recruitment often observed in the elderly. More absentminded subjects showed greater activity in fronto-parietal areas, while speed of Go trial responses produced a varied pattern of activation differences in more posterior and subcortical areas. Although response inhibition produces robust activation in a discrete network of brain regions, these results reveal that individual differences impact on the relative contribution made by the nodes of this network. IntroductionDifficulty inhibiting inappropriate behaviours is characteristic of many psychological and psychiatric disorders ranging from the impulsivity of children with ADHD (Barkley, 1997), the loss of control exhibited by drug abusers (Fillmore and Rush, 2002;Kaufman et al., 2003), to the inappropriate stimulus-driven behaviour of brain-damaged individuals (Luria, 1966). Normal cognition is also subject to occasional inhibitory disruption as suggested by lapses in speech, action, thought and intention, wherein behaviour appears to be dictated by cue or by habit (Dempster and Brainerd, 1995). As a result of the apparent importance of this aspect of cognitive control, much effort has been expended in attempting to identify its neuroanatomical substrates. However, inhibitory control is a broad term incorporating cognitive (e.g., suppressing interference), perceptual/attention (e.g., ignoring distracters) and motor (e.g., response countermanding) domains. While the similarities and dissimilarities between these aspects of inhibition remain unclear (Bunge et al., 2002;Friedman and Miyake, 2004), it is the latter operationalisation that will be the focus here. A substantial body of evidence on motor inhibition now exists due, in part, to the relative ease of implementing experimental tests of this function. Previous neuroimaging research has converged on a discrete number of regions thought to be implicated in motor response inhibition including dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, midline regions including the anterior cingulate and pre-SMA, and there is also evidence for thalamic and subcortical involvement (Aron and Poldrack, 2006;Brass et al., 2001;Braver et al., 2001;Garavan et al., 1999;Menon et al., 2001;Rubia et al., 2001;Watanabe et al., 2002). More specifically, ventral regions of the right hemisphere appear to be particularly important; the frontal operculum has been implicated

show abstract

Section: Split-group Comparisonssupporting

confidence: 51%

Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this way, an instruction to forget in an item-method task is analogous to a stop signal in a behavioral countermanding paradigm (for a review, see Logan, 1994). Indeed, eventrelated functional imaging reveals that the same areas in the inferior frontal gyrus that are involved in the cessation of overt responses (e.g., Aron, Fletcher, Bullmore, Sahakian, & Robbins, 2003;Overtoom et al, 2002;Pliszka, Liotti, & Woldorff, 2000;Rieger, Gauggel, & Burmeister, 2003) are more active during the study of an F word that and 2,600 msec after the memory instruction, thereby eliminating the RT disadvantage for post-F versus post-R probe detection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forgetting is effortful: Evidence from reaction time probes in an item-method directed forgetting task

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reaction time (RT) was measured in response to visual detection probes embedded within an item-method directed forgetting paradigm. In Experiment 1, study words were presented individually followed by an instruction to remember (R) or forget (F). Probes were presented at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 1,400, 1,800, or 2,600 msec in relation to the study word or memory instruction. After the study trials, a yes-no recognition task measured retention of R and F words. Experiment 2 added a no-word control condition and no-probe catch trials. In both experiments, post-F probe RTs were longer than post-R probe RTs at early SOAs. Confirming that participants attended to the memory instructions, there was a significant directed forgetting effect, with greater participants attended to the memory instructions, there was a significant directed forgetting effect, with greater d recognition of R than of F words. These findings contradict the view that directed forgetting in the item-method p paradigm is due to the passive decay of nonrehearsed F items; instead, they are consistent with the view that intentional forgetting in an item-method paradigm occurs via the operation of an active, potentially inhibitory, cognitive process.

show abstract

“…On forget trials, Wylie et al observed greater activity in inferior frontal gyrus when to-be-forgotten words were later successfully forgotten than when they were recognized. Importantly, regions of the inferior frontal gyrus are also active during the successful stopping of unwanted overt responses (e.g., Aron, Fletcher, Bullmore, Sahakian, & Robbins, 2003;Rieger, Gauggel, & Burmeister, 2003) and have been implicated in the ventral attentional system that is associated with exogenous attention (see Corbetta & Shulman, 2002). If item-method directed forgetting thereby operates in a way that is analogous to motor response inhibition (cf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Taylor

Fawcett

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/ attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an itemmethod paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.

show abstract

Inhibition of ongoing responses following frontal, nonfrontal, and basal ganglia lesions.

Cited by 151 publications

References 58 publications

Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control

Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control

Forgetting is effortful: Evidence from reaction time probes in an item-method directed forgetting task

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About