2002
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1198
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Human Prefrontal and Parietal Association Cortices Are Involved in NO-GO Performances: An Event-Related fMRI Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

15
143
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 266 publications
(159 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
15
143
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…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%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…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%
“…Here, inhibition was identified bilaterally within the inferior frontal gyrus including the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex, an area associated with response inhibition (Aron et al, 2003;Liddle et al, 2001;Watanabe et al, 2002), and also bilaterally within nuclei of the basal ganglia, specifically the putamen and the substantia nigra, that are not typically associated with response inhibition (Aron and Poldrack, 2006). It is suggested that the subthalamic nucleus (a subcortical region in the basal ganglia) may play a role in inhibiting initiated responses by suppressing basal ganglia-thalamocortical output via an inhibitory pathway from the inferior frontal cortex (Aron and Poldrack, 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Associated with breath holding, we identified activity within the insula, basal ganglia, frontal cortex, parietal cortex, thalamus and temporal cortex, areas that are commonly reported in imaging studies of response inhibition using Go/NoGo and Stop-signal paradigms (Aron et al, 2003;Liddle et al, 2001;Watanabe et al, 2002). In Go/NoGo paradigms the subject is required to inhibit a prepotent response, whereas in the Stop-signal paradigms the subject inhibits an action that has already been initiated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation