% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Schmidt:888584,
author = {Schmidt, Claudia C. and Timpert, David C. and Arend, Isabel
and Vossel, Simone and Fink, Gereon R. and Henik, Avishai
and Weiss, Peter H.},
title = {{C}ontrol of response interference: caudate nucleus
contributes to selective inhibition},
journal = {Scientific reports},
volume = {10},
number = {1},
issn = {2045-2322},
address = {[London]},
publisher = {Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-05040},
pages = {20977},
year = {2020},
abstract = {While the role of cortical regions in cognitive control
processes is well accepted, the contribution of subcortical
structures (e.g., the striatum), especially to the control
of response interference, remains controversial. Therefore,
the present study aimed to investigate the cortical and
particularly subcortical neural mechanisms of response
interference control (including selective inhibition).
Thirteen healthy young participants underwent event-related
functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing a
unimanual version of the Simon task. In this task,
successful performance required the resolution of
stimulus–response conflicts in incongruent trials by
selectively inhibiting interfering response tendencies. The
behavioral results show an asymmetrical Simon effect that
was more pronounced in the contralateral hemifield.
Contrasting incongruent trials with congruent trials (i.e.,
the overall Simon effect) significantly activated clusters
in the right anterior cingulate cortex, the right posterior
insula, and the caudate nucleus bilaterally. Furthermore, a
region of interest analysis based on previous patient
studies revealed that activation in the bilateral caudate
nucleus significantly co-varied with a parameter of
selective inhibition derived from distributional analyses of
response times. Our results corroborate the notion that the
cognitive control of response interference is supported by a
fronto-striatal circuitry, with a functional contribution of
the caudate nucleus to the selective inhibition of
interfering response tendencies.},
cin = {INM-3},
ddc = {600},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:33262369},
UT = {WOS:000608976100024},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-020-77744-1},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/888584},
}