Resolution of different conflict types involves both common and specific regions

In daily life, we may encounter various cognitive conflicts. For example, when we see a "blue", the meaning of the word "blue" interferes with our response to the color "red." This is the classic Stroop conflict phenomenon. When we need to respond to an object located on one side of our body (such as the left side) using the opposite hand (the right hand), we also experience a conflict known as the Simon effect. Based on the dimensional overlap framework that classify conflicts based on the overlap between the stimulus (S) and response (R) dimensions, the Stroop conflict belongs to the stimulus-stimulus (S-S) conflict, while the Simon conflict belongs to the stimulus-response (S-R) conflict. Due to the different dimensional overlap, the two types of conflict involves different processing time courses and different cognitive control resources.

An increasing number of studies have explored the neural mechanisms underlying different types of conflict control, but no consensus has been reached. For example, researchers have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and found that different types of conflicts share some brain regions, while others have found specific brain regions. To address this inconsistency, we conducted a meta-analysis. Considering that absolute generality leads to low processing efficiency of cognitive control, and absolute specificity is also impossible for countless conflicts, we hypothesized that cognitive control mechanisms contains components of both generality and specificity.

By conducting literature searches and screening, we included 75 studies of the S-S category, 27 studies of the S-R category, and 39 studies that integrated S-S and S-R. We calculated the activation likelihood estimate (ALE) by extracting the activation coordinates under the same conditions and used GingerALE software to calculate the ALE for each condition separately, the contrasts between S-S and S-R conditions, as well as multiple comparison correction, to obtain brain activation maps for different conditions and condition comparisons.


Figure 1. Literature searches and screening

The results showed that S-S and S-R conflicts jointly activated the fronto-parietal network and the cingulo-opercular network, which constitute the core of cognitive control. Compared with S-R conflict, S-S conflict more strongly activated the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the middle frontal gyrus (MFC), the superior occipital cortex (SOC), and the superior parietal cortex (SPC) on the left hemisphere. These brain regions are often involved in the processing of language and semantics, which is in line with that the semantic inconsistency is the key feature of S-S conflict. Compared with S-S conflict, S-R conflict more strongly activated the left thalamus, the right middle frontal area, and the right superior parietal area, which are involved in processing responses, movements, and spatial information. The research results indicate that the brain regions on which different types of conflict depend contain both generality and specificity.


Figure 2. Results

The organizational mechanism of advanced cognitive control is neither completely unified nor absolutely specific, but a combination of both. This efficient organization of the brain enables humans to make better decisions and overcome the constraints of adverse factors when facing complex environments.


Citation: Li, Q., Yang, G., Li, Z., Qi, Y., Cole, M. W., & Liu, X. (2017). Conflict detection and resolution rely on a combination of common and distinct cognitive control networks. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.032 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A New Account for “Practice Makes Perfect”: Revealing the computational and neural mechanisms of strategy transition

Image
  Substantial practice often leads to efficient and automatic behaviors, a phenomenon commonly referred to as automaticity. Understanding how this is achieved in the brain has been a central topic in psychology. Previous researchers have proposed that practice-induced automaticity involves a shift from implementing rules to using the memory. For example, when first learning the addition algorithm, solving 7+7+7+7 requires step-by-step addition, following the rule; with practice, one may recognize the pattern that four 7s equal 28, and performance begins to rely on memory of this pattern. While the concept of strategy shifting is well-established, when and how the shift occurs has remained unclear. Leveraging advanced computational modeling and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques, we proposed a new account that integrates decision-making into this process. We designed an engaging avatar gear selection task in which participants learned two task sequences an...
Read more

Struggling Control in Unadaptable Scenario

Image
Our cognitive control system is highly flexible, allowing us to quickly adapt to different situations as needed. While cognitive control is effective at resolving a continuous conflict task, it struggles when switching to a different conflict situation. Although this phenomenon has been widely reported, the brain's processing of this phenomenon is not well understood. To investigate this issue, we conducted a spatial Stroop-Simon task, where participants were asked to respond left or right to an up or down arrow, respectively. The arrow could appear at the top, bottom, left, or right of the screen. When the arrow appeared at vertical locations, the location could be compatible or incompatible with the arrow orientation in terms of their semantic processing, leading to the spatial Stroop effects. When the arrow appeared at horizontal locations, the location could be compatible or incompatible with the response, leading to the Simon effects. Participants underwent functional magnetic...
Read more

Comment: How expectation modulates attentional enhancement and inhibition

People receive a large amount of external information every day, and selective attention allows them to prioritize the processing of important information given their limited perceptual capacity. Generally speaking, selective attention can enhance the processing of target stimuli and suppress non-target stimuli. However, people's expectations about information can influence these two regulatory processes. However, the mechanisms by which expectations affect selective enhancement and suppression are not the same. The effect of expectations on enhancement occurs early, and can even enhance the representation of target stimuli before they appear, which is an active form of regulation. Researchers generally agree on this. However, there is much controversy over the processing mechanisms of expected suppression. The mainstream view is that expected suppression is mainly modulated by resonance in the alpha frequency band (8-12 Hz) before the stimulus appears, which is an active form of r...
Read more