Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection

Rubia, Katya; Smith, Anna; Brammer, Michael; Taylor, Eric

doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00275-1

Cited by 731 publications

(680 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

597

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with our hypothesis, the trend for performance improvement in the CPT for the active group in our study was in commission errors, which are thought to reflect impulsiveness and inhibitory mistakes [Halperin et al, 1992], thought to be mediated by rIFG [Rae et al, 2014; Rubia et al, 2003]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Real‐time fMRI neurofeedback in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Alegría

Wulff

Brinson

et al. 2017

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

108

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is associated with poor self‐control, underpinned by inferior fronto‐striatal deficits. Real‐time functional magnetic resonance neurofeedback (rtfMRI‐NF) allows participants to gain self‐control over dysregulated brain regions. Despite evidence for beneficial effects of electrophysiological‐NF on ADHD symptoms, no study has applied the spatially superior rtfMRI‐NF neurotherapy to ADHD. A randomized controlled trial tested the efficacy of rtfMRI‐NF of right inferior prefrontal cortex (rIFG), a key region that is compromised in ADHD and upregulated with psychostimulants, on improvement of ADHD symptoms, cognition, and inhibitory fMRI activation. To control for region‐specificity, an active control group received rtfMRI‐NF of the left parahippocampal gyrus (lPHG). Thirty‐one ADHD boys were randomly allocated and had to learn to upregulate their target brain region in an average of 11 rtfMRI‐NF runs over 2 weeks. Feedback was provided through a video‐clip of a rocket that had to be moved up into space. A transfer session without feedback tested learning retention as a proximal measure of transfer to everyday life. Both NF groups showed significant linear activation increases with increasing number of runs in their respective target regions and significant reduction in ADHD symptoms after neurotherapy and at 11‐month follow‐up. Only the group targeting rIFG, however, showed a transfer effect, which correlated with ADHD symptom reductions, improved at trend level in sustained attention, and showed increased IFG activation during an inhibitory fMRI task. This proof‐of‐concept study demonstrates for the first time feasibility, safety, and shorter‐ and longer‐term efficacy of rtfMRI‐NF of rIFG in adolescents with ADHD. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3190–3209, 2017. © 2017 The Authors Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Real‐time fMRI neurofeedback in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Alegría

Wulff

Brinson

et al. 2017

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

108

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

“…For example, the common load-sensitive region in the left prefrontal cortex has been implicated in both the maintenance of task goals during executive function tasks (MacDonald et al, 2000;Ullsperger and von Cramon, 2001) and WM rehearsal (Curtis and D'Esposito, 2003;D'Esposito et al, 1999;Rypma et al, 2002). Similarly, the dorsal ACC/pre-SMA region found to be common to both tasks has been widely identified across a range of tasks (Duncan and Owen, 2000), including inhibitory control (Garavan et al, 1999;Rubia et al, 2003) and WM (Kondo et al, 2004;Nyberg et al, 2003;Osaka et al, 2003). The finding that individual differences in this particular cingulate response were predictive of performance highlights it as a region critical to maintaining successful performance, though it is unclear what precise role the cingulate might be playing.…”

Section: Common Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond common resources: the cortical basis for resolving task interference

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have suggested that declining inhibitory control observed during simultaneous increases in working memory (WM) demands may be due to sharing common neural resources, although it is relatively unclear how these processes are successfully combined at a neural level. Event-related functional MRI was used to examine task performance that required inhibition of varying numbers of items held in WM. Common activation regions for WM and inhibition were observed and this functional overlap may constitute the cortical basis for task interference. However, maintaining successful inhibitory control under increasing WM demands tended not to increase activation in these overlapping regions as might be expected if these common areas reflect common resources essential for task performance. Instead, increased activation was observed predominantly in unique, inhibition-specific regions including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The finding that successfully maintaining weaker stimulus -response relationships in the face of competition from stronger, prepotent responses requires greater activity in these regions reveals the means by which the brain resolves task interference and supports theories of how top-down attentional control is implemented. D

show abstract

“…The left inferior and middle frontal cortex has been implicated in response inhibition [Konishi et al, [2003]; Rubia et al, [2003]; Schulz et al, [2004]] and memory suppression ]; however, the functions of this area extend beyond response inhibition. Joint activation of the inferolateral frontal cortex (BA 44-47) and the SMA (BA 6) has been associated with generation of language and other speech (e.g., sign-language) [Horwitz et al, [2003]] and response selection in paradigms requiring task switching or outcome assessment [Lau et al, [2004]; Paulus et al, [2004]; Rowe et al, [2000]; Turk et al, [2004]; Zhang et al, [2004]].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Langleben

Loughead

Bilker

et al. 2005

Human Brain Mapping

269

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R. (2005). Telling the truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/neuroethics_pubs/6Telling the truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related f MRI AbstractDeception is a clinically important behavior with poorly understood neurobiological correlates. Published functional MRI (fMRI) data on the brain activity during deception indicates that, on a multisubject group level, lie is distinguished from truth by increased prefrontal and parietal activity. These findings are theoretically important; however, their applied value will be determined by the accuracy of the discrimination between single deceptive and truthful responses in individual subjects. This study presents the first quantitative estimate of the accuracy of fMRI in conjunction with a formal forced-choice paradigm in detecting deception in individual subjects. We used a paradigm balancing the salience of the target cues to elicit deceptive and truthful responses and determined the accuracy of this model in the classification of single lie and truth events. The relative salience of the task cues affected the net activation associated with lie in the superior medial and inferolateral prefrontal cortices. Lie was discriminated from truth on a single-event level with an accuracy of 78%, while the predictive ability expressed as the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) was 85%. Our findings confirm that fMRI, in conjunction with a carefully controlled query procedure, could be used to detect deception in individual subjects. Salience of the task cues is a potential confounding factor in the fMRI pattern attributed to deception in forced choice deception paradigms.

show abstract

Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection

Cited by 731 publications

References 46 publications

Real‐time fMRI neurofeedback in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Real‐time fMRI neurofeedback in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Beyond common resources: the cortical basis for resolving task interference

Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event‐related fMRI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About