Limits...
Putting the brakes on inhibitory models of frontal lobe function.

Hampshire A - Neuroimage (2015)

Bottom Line: However, there is growing evidence to support the alternative view that response inhibition is just one prominent example of the many cognitive control processes that are supported by the same set of 'domain general' functional networks.The results demonstrate that there is no inhibitory module within the RIFC.Instead, response inhibition recruits a functionally heterogeneous ensemble of RIFC networks, which can be dissociated from each other in the context of other task demands.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: a.hampshire@imperial.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Data extracted from the proposed coordinates of the inhibition module for studies 1 and 2. There was significant activation across a range of target detection conditions regardless of the requirement to inhibit a motor response. Error bars report the standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4441092&req=5

f0025: Data extracted from the proposed coordinates of the inhibition module for studies 1 and 2. There was significant activation across a range of target detection conditions regardless of the requirement to inhibit a motor response. Error bars report the standard error of the mean.

Mentions: It has been claimed that studies 1 and 2 focused on the wrong regions of the RIFC and, consequently, did not report results from an area that responds to response inhibition demands specifically (Aron et al., 2014b). Therefore, mean parameter estimates were first extracted from the Aron ROI for each of the three acquisition blocks in study 1 (Fig. 5a). These data were examined at the group level using a one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the condition was acquisition block (COUNT, RESPOND and INHIBIT). In accordance with a role for this region in the task, there was a significant positive effect of condition (i.e., T contrast collapsed across all three conditions t = 2.13, p < 0.02); however, there was no significant main effect of acquisition block (F = 0.51, p = 0.61). Contrasting INHIBITION minus the other two control blocks also showed no significant effect (t = 0.02, p = 0.49), a result that accords poorly with the notion of a dedicated motor response inhibition module. Furthermore, repeating the analysis with ROIs from the ICA showed similar and in some cases more pronounced positive effects of condition (Table 2), with the strongest effects being for the frontopolar cortex and the anterior insula/inferior frontal operculum. There were no significant main effects of acquisition block in any of the ICA ROIs.


Putting the brakes on inhibitory models of frontal lobe function.

Hampshire A - Neuroimage (2015)

Data extracted from the proposed coordinates of the inhibition module for studies 1 and 2. There was significant activation across a range of target detection conditions regardless of the requirement to inhibit a motor response. Error bars report the standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4441092&req=5

f0025: Data extracted from the proposed coordinates of the inhibition module for studies 1 and 2. There was significant activation across a range of target detection conditions regardless of the requirement to inhibit a motor response. Error bars report the standard error of the mean.
Mentions: It has been claimed that studies 1 and 2 focused on the wrong regions of the RIFC and, consequently, did not report results from an area that responds to response inhibition demands specifically (Aron et al., 2014b). Therefore, mean parameter estimates were first extracted from the Aron ROI for each of the three acquisition blocks in study 1 (Fig. 5a). These data were examined at the group level using a one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the condition was acquisition block (COUNT, RESPOND and INHIBIT). In accordance with a role for this region in the task, there was a significant positive effect of condition (i.e., T contrast collapsed across all three conditions t = 2.13, p < 0.02); however, there was no significant main effect of acquisition block (F = 0.51, p = 0.61). Contrasting INHIBITION minus the other two control blocks also showed no significant effect (t = 0.02, p = 0.49), a result that accords poorly with the notion of a dedicated motor response inhibition module. Furthermore, repeating the analysis with ROIs from the ICA showed similar and in some cases more pronounced positive effects of condition (Table 2), with the strongest effects being for the frontopolar cortex and the anterior insula/inferior frontal operculum. There were no significant main effects of acquisition block in any of the ICA ROIs.

Bottom Line: However, there is growing evidence to support the alternative view that response inhibition is just one prominent example of the many cognitive control processes that are supported by the same set of 'domain general' functional networks.The results demonstrate that there is no inhibitory module within the RIFC.Instead, response inhibition recruits a functionally heterogeneous ensemble of RIFC networks, which can be dissociated from each other in the context of other task demands.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: a.hampshire@imperial.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.