The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control

Science

Volumn 306, Issue 5695, 2004, Pages 443-447

  Ridderinkhof, K Richard ^a,b   Ullsperger, Markus ^c   Crone, Eveline A ^d   Nieuwenhuis, Sander ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; DEMODULATION; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; NEUROLOGY;

COGNITIVE CONTROL; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROSCIENCE;

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

BIOLOGY;

BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; FRONTAL CORTEX; LEARNING; NEUROANATOMY; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROSCIENCE; NONHUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN MAPPING; COGNITION; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FRONTAL LOBE; GYRUS CINGULI; HUMANS; LEARNING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; META-ANALYSIS; NEURONS; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PRIMATES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REWARD;

PRIMATES;

EID: 5644256867     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1100301     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. M. Shidara, B. Richmond, Science 296, 1709 (2002).
2. B. Knutson, G. W. Fong, C. M. Adams, J. L. Varner, D. Nommer, Neuroreport 12, 3683 (2001).
3. V. Stuphorn, T. L. Taylor, J. D. Schall, Nature 408, 857 (2000).
4. S. Ito, V. Stuphorn, J. W. Brown, J. D. Schall, Science 302, 120 (2003).
5. K. Shima, J. Tanji, Science 282, 1335 (1998).
6. J. O'Doherty, M. L. Kringelbach, E. T. Rolls, J. Hornak, C. Andrews, Nature Neurosci. 4, 95 (2001).
7. M. Ullsperger, D. Y. von Cramon, J. Neurosci. 23, 4308 (2003).
8. C. B. Holroyd, M. G. H. Coles, Psychol. Rev. 109, 679 (2002).
9. C. B. Holroyd, J. T. Larsen, J. D. Cohen, Psychophysiology 41, 245 (2004).
10. H. Gemba, K. 5asaki. V. B. Brooks, Neurosci. Lett. 70, 223 (1986).
11. M. Ullsperger, D. Y. Von Cramon, Cortex, in press.
12. N. Picard. P. L. Strick, Cereb. Cortex 6, 342 (1996).
13. C. B. Holroyd, S. Nieuwenhuis, R. B. Mars, M. G. H. Coles, in Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention, M. I. Posner, Ed. (Guilford, New York, in press).
14. W. J. Gehring, B. GOSS, M. G. H. Coles, D. E. Meyer, E. Donchin, Psychol. Sci. 4, 385 (1993).
15. M. Falkenstein, J. Hoormann, S. Christ, J. Hohnsbein, Biol. Psychol. 51, 87 (2000).
16. W. Schultz, Neuron 36, 241 (2002).
17. C. B. Holroyd et al., Nature Neurosci. 7, 497 (2004).
18. M. M. Botvinick, T. S. Braver, D. M. Barch, C. S. Carter, J. D. Cohen, Psychol. Rev. 108, 624 (2001).
19. N. Yeung, M. M. Botvinick, J. D. Cohen, Psychol. Rev., in press.
20. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
21. R. Hester, C. Fassbender, H. Caravan, Cereb. Cortex 14, 986 (2004).
22. The majority of activations fall into the border zone between areas 8, 6, and 32, with some extension into area 24. Recent research in nonhuman primates seems to suggest a functional-anatomical dissociation of regions subserving pre-response conflict monitoring from structures sensitive to errors and omission of reward (1, 4). Although in humans this view is still under debate (77, 73, 21), the present meta-analysis does not provide unequivocal evidence for or against such a dissociation. Activations related to pre-response conflict and uncertainty occur more often in area 8 and less often in area 24 than do signal increases associated with errors and negative feedback (area 8, 32.5% versus 9.7%; area 24, 7.5% versus 25.8%), supporting the dissociation view. However, both groups of activations duster primarily in area 32 (pre-response, 42.5%; error, 41.9%), suggesting that pre- as well as post-response monitoring processes share at least one underlying structure. It seems that the currently available spatial resolution in fMRI, in conjunction with anatomical variability and differences in scanning and preprocessing methods between studies, limit the ability to resolve this debate about a possible dissociation in the range of 10 mm or less.
23. T. Paus, Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2, 417 (2001).
24. H. D. Critchley et al., Brain 126, 2139 (2003).
25. E. K. Miller, J. D. Cohen, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 167 (2001).
26. A. R. Aron, T. W. Robbins, R. A. Poldrack, Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 170 (2004).
27. D. Badre, A. D. Wagner, Neuron 41, 473 (2004).
28. S. A. Bunge, K. N. Ochsner, J. E. Desmond, G. H. Glover, J. D. E. Gabrieli, Brain 124, 2074 (2001).
29. M. Brass, D. Y. von Cramon, J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 609 (2004).
30. K. R. Ridderinkhof et al., Science 298, 2209 (2002).
31. K. R. Ridderinkhof, S. Nieuwenhuis, T. R. Bashore, Neurosci. Lett. 348, 1 (2003).
32. J. G. Kerns et al., Science 303, 1023 (2004).
33. H. Caravan, T. J. Ross, K. Murphy, R. A. Roche, E. A. Stein, Neuroimage 17, 1820 (2002).
34. C. Bush et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 523 (2002).
35. J. O'Doherty, H. Critchley. R. Deichmann, R. J. Dolan, J. Neurosci. 23, 7931 (2003).
36. R. Cools, L. Clark. A. M. Owen, T. W. Robbins, J. Neurosci. 22, 4563 (2002).
37. J. F. Bates, P. S. Coldman-Rakic, J. Comp. Neurol. 336, 211 (1993).
38. M. Petrides, D. N. Pandya, Eur. J. Neurosci. 11, 1011 (1999).
39. L. Koski. T. Paus, Exp. Brain Res. 133, 55 (2000).
40. K. Fiehler, M. Ulbperger, D. Y. von Cramon, Eur. J. Neurosci. 19, 3081 (2004).
41. W. J. Gehring, R. T. Knight, Nature Neurosci. 3, 516 (2000).
42. M. I. Posner, G. J. DiGirolamo, in The Attentive Brain, R. Parasuraman, Ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998), pp. 401-423.
43. K. Matsumoto, K. Tanaka, Science 303, 969 (2004).
44. K. Matsumoto, K. Tanaka, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 178 (2004).
45. This research was supported by a TALENT grant (E.A.C.) and a VENI grant (S.N.) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and by the Priority Program Executive Functions of the German Research Foundation (M.U.). Helpful comments by S. Bunge are gratefully acknowledged.