2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prefrontal-cingulate activation during executive control: which comes first?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

36
165
3
6

Year Published

2004
2004
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 174 publications
(210 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
36
165
3
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Given the continuous nature of the task and the temporal resolution of fMRI acquisition, we could not directly distinguish between the monitoring and the implementation components of cognitive control. Although there are studies suggesting that ACC might be involved in control implementation itself (Posner and Rothbart, 1998;Markela-Lerenc et al, 2004;Roelofs et al, 2006), a large body of evidence in the cognitive control framework indicates that ACC is the monitoring component (Carter et al, 1998Garavan et al, 2002;Botvinick et al, 2004;Kerns et al, 2004b;Brown and Braver, 2005), whereas the prefrontal substrate actually implements the task control (Carter et study, we found that the PFC was more active in the incompatible versus the compatible condition but only in the early stage of the experiment when the task was less skillful. Furthermore, the PFC was more active in the early stage versus late stage but only for the more difficult incompatible condition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…Given the continuous nature of the task and the temporal resolution of fMRI acquisition, we could not directly distinguish between the monitoring and the implementation components of cognitive control. Although there are studies suggesting that ACC might be involved in control implementation itself (Posner and Rothbart, 1998;Markela-Lerenc et al, 2004;Roelofs et al, 2006), a large body of evidence in the cognitive control framework indicates that ACC is the monitoring component (Carter et al, 1998Garavan et al, 2002;Botvinick et al, 2004;Kerns et al, 2004b;Brown and Braver, 2005), whereas the prefrontal substrate actually implements the task control (Carter et study, we found that the PFC was more active in the incompatible versus the compatible condition but only in the early stage of the experiment when the task was less skillful. Furthermore, the PFC was more active in the early stage versus late stage but only for the more difficult incompatible condition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…In the study of the interference effect of adults, it was the frontal region that inhibited the interference effects. Markela-Lerenc et al [6] found colors and meanings of words in incongruent conditions evoked a greater negativity in the 350-450 ms post-stimulus than that in congruent conditions in Stroop task. Source analysis of the difference wave (incongruent-congruent) indicated that a generator localized in the left prefrontal cortex contributed to this effect.…”
Section: Time Course Of Audio-visual Interference Inhibitionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In the study of Mager et al [5], when 30-year-old and 50-year-old adults were performing the Stroop task, a broad negativity developed after incongruent vs. congruent stimuli between 350 and 650 ms. An age-related increase of the latency and amplitude of this negativity was observed. Markela-Lerenc et al [6] found that N350-450 and P450-550 were greater in the incongruent as compared with the congruent and neutral conditions. Experimental materials may influence interferential effects of the Stroop task with regard to the processing course.…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Concerning the Stroop color-word interference effect, source localization studies have suggested different but related brain generators for the N450 and LPC (Liotti et al 2000;Markela-Lerenc et al 2004;Hanslmayr et al 2008). …”
Section: Source Localization Of Erps Associated With Inhibition Betwementioning
confidence: 99%