The Role of Right Anterior Insula and Salience Processing in Inhibitory Control

Ghahremani, Ayda; Rastogi, Anuj; Lam, Susy

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5239-14.2015

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This profile of performance is consistent with OFC as a locus for matching incentive information to guide behavior (Levy and Glimcher 2012). It is likely that this role of OFC in punishment relates to its strong reciprocal connectivity with BLA (Carmichael and Price 1995;Ghashghaei and Barbas 2002), which we have shown previously to encode the aversive value of the punisher in this task (JeanRichard and McNally 2015) The RAIC has been strongly implicated in multiple aspects of aversion-coding (Coghill et al 1994;Flynn et al 1999;Simmons et al 2004Simmons et al , 2006Preuschoff et al 2008;Franciotti et al 2009;Furlong et al 2010;Menon and Uddin 2010;Hayes and Northoff 2011;Wiech and Tracey 2013) and behavioral control (Cai et al 2014;Ghahremani et al 2015). Despite this, RAIC inactivations had no effect on either the acquisition of expression of punishment, suggesting that RAIC is not required for appropriate suppression of a response that causes an aversive shock.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Lateral, not medial, prefrontal cortex contributes to punishment and aversive instrumental learning

Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel

McNally

2016

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aversive outcomes punish behaviors that cause their occurrence. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) has been implicated in punishment learning and behavior, although the exact roles for different PFC regions in instrumental aversive learning and decision-making remain poorly understood. Here, we assessed the role of the orbitofrontal (OFC), rostral agranular insular (RAIC), prelimbic (PL), and infralimbic (IL) cortex in instrumental aversive learning and decision-making. Rats that pressed two individually presented levers for pellet rewards rapidly suppressed responding to one lever if it also caused mild punishment (punished lever) but continued pressing the other lever that did not cause punishment (unpunished lever). Inactivations of OFC, RAIC, IL, or PL via the GABA agonists baclofen and muscimol (BM) had no effect on the acquisition of instrumental learning. OFC inactivations increased responding on the punished lever during expression of well-learned instrumental aversive learning, whereas RAIC inactivations increased responding on the punished lever when both levers were presented simultaneously in an unpunished choice test. There were few effects of medial PFC (PL and IL) inactivation. These results suggest that lateral PFC, notably OFC and RAIC, have complementary functions in aversive instrumental learning and decision-making; OFC is important for using established aversive instrumental memories to guide behavior away from actions that cause punishment, whereas RAIC is important for aversive decision-making under conditions of choice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Lateral, not medial, prefrontal cortex contributes to punishment and aversive instrumental learning

Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel

McNally

2016

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using a conjunction analysis, we sought to determine the neuronal circuitries involved in multimodal integration irrespective of the type of sensory stimuli, and identified a network of brain areas spanning the prefrontal, the parietal, and the visual cortices. Thus, during MSI irrespective of the sensory stimuli (but always including visual information), we observed a conjoint recruitment of the brain network related to visual processing (the striate and extrastriate cortices), spatial perception and sustained attention (the parietal cortex) (e.g., Malhotra, Coulthard, & Husain, ), inhibition and multisensory attention (the insula) (e.g., Ghahremani, Rastogi, & Lam, ), vigilance, error response monitoring and resolution of response conflict (the medial prefrontal cortex) (Chechko et al, ; e.g., Chechko et al, ; Chechko et al, ), and, finally, motor output (the precentral gyrus). This corroborates the findings of studies that focused on the integration of auditory stimuli with other sensory modalities and favored the role of those areas in MSI processes, often referring to the IPS as one of the central hubs (Bremmer et al, ; Calvert & Thesen, ; Grefkes & Fink, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Audio–visual and olfactory–visual integration in healthy participants and subjects with autism spectrum disorder

Stickel

Weismann

Kellermann

et al. 2019

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human capacity to integrate sensory signals has been investigated with respect to different sensory modalities. A common denominator of the neural network underlying the integration of sensory clues has yet to be identified. Additionally, brain imaging data from patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not cover disparities in neuronal sensory processing. In this fMRI study, we compared the underlying neural networks of both olfactory–visual and auditory–visual integration in patients with ASD and a group of matched healthy participants. The aim was to disentangle sensory‐specific networks so as to derive a potential (amodal) common source of multisensory integration (MSI) and to investigate differences in brain networks with sensory processing in individuals with ASD. In both groups, similar neural networks were found to be involved in the olfactory–visual and auditory–visual integration processes, including the primary visual cortex, the inferior parietal sulcus (IPS), and the medial and inferior frontal cortices. Amygdala activation was observed specifically during olfactory–visual integration, with superior temporal activation having been seen during auditory–visual integration. A dynamic causal modeling analysis revealed a nonlinear top‐down IPS modulation of the connection between the respective primary sensory regions in both experimental conditions and in both groups. Thus, we demonstrate that MSI has shared neural sources across olfactory–visual and audio–visual stimulation in patients and controls. The enhanced recruitment of the IPS to modulate changes between areas is relevant to sensory perception. Our results also indicate that, with respect to MSI processing, adults with ASD do not significantly differ from their healthy counterparts.

show abstract

“…These findings have been summarized in Figure 4. Activation in other regions that are considered part of an extended inhibitory control network, such as parietal cortex, insula, cuneus, supplementary motor area (Bari and Robbins, 2013;Chambers et al, 2009;Ghahremani et al, 2015;Luijten et al, 2014) were also found to correlate inversely with BMI (Hendrick et al, 2012).…”

Section: Neuroimaging Studies Of Inhibitory Controlmentioning

confidence: 91%

Inhibitory control in obesity and binge eating disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies

Lavagnino

Arnone

Cao

et al. 2016

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

295

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to exercise appropriate inhibitory control is critical in the regulation of body weight, but the exact mechanisms are not known. In this systematic review, we identified 37 studies that used specific neuropsychological tasks relevant to inhibitory control performance in obese participants with and without binge eating disorder (BED). We performed a meta-analysis of the studies that used the stop signal task (N=8). We further examined studies on the delay discounting task, the go/no-go task and the Stroop task in a narrative review. We found that inhibitory control is significantly impaired in obese adults and children compared to individuals with body weight within a healthy range (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD): 0.30; CI=0.00, 0.59, p=0.007). The presence of BED in obese individuals did not impact on task performance (SMD: 0.05; CI: -0.22, 0.32, p=0.419). Neuroimaging studies in obesity suggest that lower prefrontal cortex activity affects inhibitory control and BMI. In summary, impairment in inhibitory control is a critical feature associated with obesity and a potential target for clinical interventions.

show abstract

The Role of Right Anterior Insula and Salience Processing in Inhibitory Control

Cited by 33 publications

References 11 publications

Lateral, not medial, prefrontal cortex contributes to punishment and aversive instrumental learning

Lateral, not medial, prefrontal cortex contributes to punishment and aversive instrumental learning

Audio–visual and olfactory–visual integration in healthy participants and subjects with autism spectrum disorder

Inhibitory control in obesity and binge eating disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About