Executive Functions Brain System: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-analytic Study

Executive Functions Brain System: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-analytic Study Abstract Background and objective To characterize commonalities and differences between two executive functions: reasoning and inhibitory control. Methods A total of 5,974 participants in 346 fMRI experiments of inhibition or reasoning were selected. First level analysis consisted of Analysis of Likelihood Estimation (ALE) studies performed in two pooled data groups: (a) brain areas involved in reasoning and (b) brain areas involved in inhibition. Second level analysis consisted of two contrasts: (i) brain areas involved in reasoning but not in inhibition and (ii) brain areas involved in inhibition but not in reasoning. Lateralization Indexes were calculated. Results Four brain areas appear as the most critical: the dorsolateral aspect of the frontal lobes, the superior parietal lobules, the mesial aspect of the premotor area (supplementary motor area), and some subcortical areas, particularly the putamen and the thalamus. ALE contrasts showed significant differentiation of the networks, with the reasoning > inhibition—contrast showing a predominantly leftward participation, and the inhibition > reasoning—contrast, a clear right advantage. Conclusion Executive functions are mediated by sizable brain areas including not only cortical, but also involving subcortical areas in both hemispheres. The strength of activation shows dissociation between the hemispheres for inhibition (rightward) and reasoning (leftward) functions. Executive functions, Meta-analysis, fMRI, Reasoning, Inhibition Introduction The term “executive function” is relatively new in neurosciences. The observation that the frontal lobes were involved in regulatory behaviors, such as reasoning, problem solving, planning, inhibiting responses, strategy development and implementation, and working memory, resulted in the comprehensive term “executive function.” Luria (1980) is the direct antecessor of the concept of executive functions. He distinguished three functional units in the brain: (1) arousal-motivation (limbic and reticular systems); (2) receiving, processing, and storing information (post-Rolandic cortical areas); and (3) programming, controlling, and verifying activity (frontal lobes). Luria considered that this third unit had an executive role. “Executive functioning” indeed is a term currently addressed by many, but integrated by Lezak (1983). Baddeley (1986) grouped these behaviors into cognitive domains that, when impaired, include problems in planning, organizing behaviors, dis-inhibition, perseveration, reduced fluency, and initiation. The definition of executive function also includes the ability to filter interference, engage in goal-directed behaviors, reasoning, temporality of behavior, inhibition, anticipation of the consequences of one’s actions, and the adaptive concept of mental flexibility (Denckla, 1996; Stuss & Knight, 2002). The concept of morality, ethical behaviors, self-awareness, and the idea of the frontal lobes as manager and programmer of the human psyche are also included. Many authors have suggested different subcomponents of executive functions (e.g., Anderson, 2001; Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001; Denckla, 1994; Lezak, 1983), but differences in interpretation remain (Juarado & Rosselli, 2007). Clinical observations have demonstrated the important role of the prefrontal cortex in neurobehavioral syndromes (Luria, 1980; Stuss & Knight, 2002). Ardila (2008, 2013) suggested that the prefrontal lobe participates in two closely related but different executive function categories: (1) “meta-cognitive executive functions” such as reasoning, problem solving, planning, concept formation, strategy development and implementation, manipulating concepts in working memory, and the like; and (2) “emotional/motivational executive functions” such as inhibitory control and coordinating cognition and emotion/motivation. “Meta-cognitive” and “emotional/motivational” executive functions may have arisen at different times during human evolution, and although primates and hominids may possess (or have possessed) the second (e.g., inhibition, control), the first is observed only in humans (e.g., reasoning), and is therefore likely a recent evolutionary development. Meta-cognitive executive functions, and among them reasoning, have been frequently related with dorsolateral prefrontal activation. Using fMRI, dorsolateral prefrontal activation has been found in tasks such as solving the Tower of Hanoi (Fincham, Carter, van Veen, Stenger, & Anderson, 2002), Controlled Word Association Test (letter fluency) (Baldo, Schwartz, Wilkins, & Dronkers, 2006), working memory (Yoon, Hoffman, & D’Esposito, 2007), and solving the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Lie, Specht, Marshall, & Fink, 2006). According to Fuster (1997, 2002), the most general executive function of the lateral prefrontal cortex is the temporal organization of goal-directed actions in the domains of behavior, cognition, and language. Furthermore, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex seemingly plays a central role in global aspects of general intelligence (Barbey, Colom, & Grafman, 2013). Several studies of reasoning had shown association of this ability with the activation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (e.g., Babcock & Vallesi, 2015; Durning et al., 2015; Urbanski et al., 2016). The ventromedial and orbital areas of the prefrontal cortex are involved in the control of emotional behavior (Fuster, 2001, 2002). This function is related to the so-called “inhibitory control” of behavior (Miller & Wang, 2006). Clinical evidence (Luria, 1969; Stuss & Knight, 2002) as well as experimental research (Leung & Cai, 2007; Medalla, Lera, Feinberg, & Barbas, 2007) suggest that the neural substrate for this inhibitory function resides mainly in the medial and orbital portions of the prefrontal cortex. Fuster (2002) points out that “The apparent physiological objective of the inhibitory influences from orbitomedial cortex is the suppression of internal and external inputs that can interfere with whatever structure of behavior, speech, or cognition is about to be undertaken or currently underway” (p. 382). There seems to be also a relationship between orbitofrontal cortex and the basal ganglia in the inhibitory executive function (e.g., Bari & Robbins, 2013). Inhibition may be divided between cognitive and motor inhibition (Smith, Johnstone, & Barry, 2008). It has been reported that both types of inhibition activate similar frontal areas but that there is a dissociation between the brain hemispheres with a leftward predominance for cognitive inhibition (such as required in a Stroop test to overcome the interference given by the prepotent response) and rightward predominance for motor inhibition such as required in go/no-go tasks (Bernal & Altman, 2009). Cognitive inhibition has been much less studied compared to motor inhibition. Motor inhibition has been found associated to lateral and ventral frontal opercular areas, mainly the right inferior frontal gyrus and the anterior insula (Aron, Robbins & Poldrack, 2004; Hampshire, Chamberlain, Monti, Duncan & Owen, 2010). The medial frontal, the anterior cingulate gyrus, the middle frontal gyrus and the parietal lobule have been also found activating in these types of tasks (Rubia et al., 2001). Reasoning and inhibitory control represent two cardinal executive functioning abilities. Although reasoning and inhibition seem to be quite distinct functions, there has been described an interplay between control inhibition and reasoning. In formal reasoning there is always a competence between “belief-based“ and “logical-based” reasoning. For instance, stereotypical beliefs predispose judgment, and dreadful traumatic memories may sway reasoning from logical paths. Therefore, inhibitory control is needed to override intuitive responses and keep track within logic reasoning (De Neys & Van Gelder, 2009). This realization suggests that overlaps and dissociations should exist between inhibitory control and reasoning cortical representation. Reasoning is frequently regarded as one of the most basic meta-cognitive abilities (e.g., Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Stuss & Knight, 2002; Stuss & Levine, 2002; Tirapu-Ustárroz, García-Molina, Ríos-Lago, & Ardila, 2012; Salthouse, 2005) which in association with perceptual speed has been hypothesized to be one of the underlying factors related to all executive functions (Salthouse, 1996, 2005). Moreover, inhibitory control seems to be at the bases of emotional/motivational executive function (e.g., Miller & Wang, 2006) as it is needed for accurate performance of other more complex executive functions. Consequently, when analyzing reasoning and inhibitory control we are dealing with two core fundamental executive functions. To the dispersion and complexity of sub-divisions of executive functions in the frontal lobes aforementioned we should add the involvement of other brain areas. Indeed, even though executive dysfunction usually follows focal brain injury of the frontal lobes, not all executive processes are exclusively sustained by the frontal cortex (Andrés & Van der Linden, 2002; Bettcher et al., 2016). Lesions in nearly any part of the brain have been associated with executive dysfunctions (Hausen, Lachmann, & Nagler, 1997). Contemporary research even finds strategy operations in the occipital cortical neurons on visual tasks (Super, Spekreijse & Lamme, 2001). Andrés (2003) analyzed two executive processes: inhibition and dual-task management. She concluded that (1) executive processes involve links between different brain areas, not exclusively with the frontal cortex, (2) patients with no evidence of frontal damage may present with executive deficits, and (3) patients with frontal lesions do not always show executive deficits. Using a multivariate twin study of three components of executive functions (inhibiting responses, updating working memory, and shifting between tasks), Friedman and colleagues (2008) found that executive functions are highly inter-correlated, suggesting a common factor that goes beyond general intelligence. Communality and differences in diverse executive functions have been proposed by different authors (e.g., Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howerter, 2000). In a recent meta-analysis of 28 imaging studies exploring reasoning it was found that the greater involvement is located in the left frontal and parietal lobes, the thalamus and putamen (Prado, Chadha & Booth, 2011). In a study with event-related fMRI of deductive reasoning task, it was found a sequential activation of occipital–parietal areas, dorsolateral frontal lobe and the parietal lobe on the left side. Interestingly, the parietal activation was specific to reasoning after controlling for other confounds. This is in line with the a recent report suggesting that inductive reasoning is predicted by the activation of both the frontal and the parietal lobes (Jia, Liang, Shi,Wang, & Li, 2015). Rightward lateralization of motor inhibition has been also previously described by several authors (e.g., Aron et al., 2004; Bernal & Altman, 2009; Rubia et al., 2001). Executive functions have been previously described as localized not only in the frontal lobes but in other lobes (Andrés & Van der Linden, 2002; Hausen et al., 1997). Nonetheless, as anticipated by a large number of publications, our results show that the main foci of activation were found in the frontal lobes, particularly in the dorsolateral cortex. Two additional areas were strongly involved in executive functions: the parietal lobe, very specially the superior parietal lobe and the mesial aspect of the premotor area in the frontal lobe (supplementary motor area). Foci of activation were also found subcortically, especially at the putamen and thalamus. The involvement of other brain areas in executive functions in addition to the prefrontal cortex may seem unexpected. We found that executive functions brain system involves not only the dorsolateral aspect of the frontal lobes—as usually assumed—but also the superior parietal lobules, the mesial aspect of the premotor area (supplementary motor area), and some subcortical areas, particularly the putamen and the thalamus. Nonetheless, diverse previous studies, including fMRI studies, have also found that the parietal lobe is directly involved in executive functions (Diamond, 2013; Fassbender et al., 2004; Garavan, Ross, Murphy, Roche, & Stein, 2002; Niendam et al., 2012; Sauseng, Klimesch, Schabus & Doppelmayr, 2005; Sylvester et al., 2003). For instance, Fassbender and colleagues (2004) used fMRI to study the brain processes involved in the executive control of behavior. They administered the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART); a mixed (block and event-related) fMRI design was used to examine tonic and phasic processes involved in response inhibition, error detection, conflict monitoring and sustained attention. A network of regions, including right ventral prefrontal cortex, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and right inferior parietal cortex, was activated for successful unpredictable inhibitions, whereas the rostral anterior cingulate was implicated in error processing and the pre-supplementary motor area in conflict monitoring. Sylvester and colleagues (2003), using functional magnetic fMRI for both event-related and blocked design tasks, found evidence for common neural areas across both tasks in bilateral parietal cortex (BA40), left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (BA9), premotor cortex (BA6), and medial frontal cortex (BA6/32). They also found areas preferentially involved in the switching of attention between mental counts (BA7, BA18) and the inhibition of a prepotent motor response (BA6, BA10), respectively. Thus, it seems well supported that the parietal lobes have a direct involvement in executive functions. Similarly, diverse studies have illustrated the involvement of the supplementary motor area in executive functions. For instance, Bonini and colleagues (2014), using intracerebral recording, observed the leading role in the neural network underlying the capacity to evaluate the outcomes of our actions—a fundamental executive function—is played by the supplementary motor area. Nachev, Kennard, & Husain (2008) have pointed out that the suupplementary motor area links cognition to action. Ridderinkhof, Ullsperger, Crone, & Nieuwenhuis (2004) suggest that this brain area participates in cognition control. Sylvester and colleagues (2003), using fMRI, found the medial “frontal cortex” (BA6/32) participates both in the switching of attention between tasks, and the resolution of interference between competing task responses. Functional neuroimaging studies have also shown the involvement of the basal ganglia and particularly the putamen in executive functions (Lewis, Dove, Robbins, Barker & Owen, 2004; Monchi, Petrides, Strafella, Worsley, & Doyon, 2006; Owen, 2004; Rogers, Andrews, Grasby, Brooks & Robbins, 2000; Sylvester et al., 2003). There is also evidence that the thalamus participates in an executive functions brain system (Alexander, DeLong, & Strick, 1986). For instance, Van der Werf and colleagues (2003) found evidence of deficits of memory, executive functioning, and attention following infarction in the thalamus. Radanovic, Azambuja, Mansur, Porto, & Scaff (2003) studied six patients with thalamic vascular lesions to characterize repercussions in their communicative abilities as well as the interface between language alterations and other cognitive abilities such as attention, memory and frontal executive. Results showed these patients present impairment in several cognitive domains, especially attention and executive functions. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that in cases of basal ganglia diseases, such as Parkinson and Huntington diseases, impairments in executive functions are found (e.g., Lawrence et al., 1996; Robbins et al., 1994; Owen et al., 1992; Taylor, Saint-Cyr, & Lang, 1986). The specific purpose of this study was to pinpoint the relative contribution of different brain areas to these two core “executive functions” allowing the characterization of their networks. We hypothesized that (i) motor inhibition and reasoning may share activation areas, mostly in prefrontal lobes; (ii) distinct brain areas both pre-Rolandic and post-Rolandic, cortical and subcortical, become active during the performance of inhibition and reasoning tasks; (iii) there is a brain asymmetry for each of these functions; and (iv) there is left lateralization for reasoning, departing from the assumption that reasoning is strongly mediated by language, and language is usually lateralized to the left hemisphere (Langdon & Warrington, 2000; Luria, 1976, 1980; Turner, Marinsek, Ryhal & Miller, 2015; Urbanski et al., 2016; Vygotsky, 1934/2012). Materials and Methods The DataBase of Brainmap (http://brainmap.org) (Fox & Lancaster, 2002; Laird et al., 2005b) was accessed on August 10, 2016, utilizing Sleuth 2. Sleuth is the software provided by Brainmap to query its database. This is solid and a well-known DataBase that has been widely used in a variety of similar studies (e.g., Daniel, Katz & Robinson, 2016; Hill, Laird & Robinson, 2014; Kohn et al., 2014). Two queries were performed and will be explained subsequently. Two automatic meta-analyses of peaks of activation across studies/participants were initially conducted (first level analysis). The first meta-analysis was intended to assess the brain areas involved in reasoning tasks. The second meta-analysis was intended to assess the specific areas involved in inhibition. In a second level analysis two between-group contrasts were performed to assess: (a) the areas involved more in reasoning than in inhibitory control (R > I) and (b) the areas involved more in inhibition than in reasoning (I > R). Automatic meta-analyses were done by pooling co-activation patterns utilizing the Sleuth software. This program finds, filters, organizes, plots, and exports the activation peak coordinates for further statistical analysis of its results. Sleuth provides a list of foci, in Talairach or MNI coordinates, each one representing the center of mass of a cluster of activation. The method allows selecting the studies according to certain conditions (such as age, normal vs. patients, type of paradigm, domain of cognition, etc.). By pooling the data with these conditions the tool provides a universe of activations that can be statistically analyzed for significant commonality across studies. For this purpose, Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) (Laird et al., 2005a,b; Turkeltaub, Eden, Jones, & Zeffiro, 2002) was performed utilizing GingerALE, software also provided by Brainmap. The tool assesses the probability of an event to occur at voxel level across the studies, and the likelihood of peak-clusterization contrasting with thousands of iterations with random distribution of a number of peaks that would serve as null-hypothesis baseline. First Level Analysis Query 1: Reasoning The search conditions were: (1) studies using fMRI; (2) context: normal participants; (3) activations: activation only; (4) handedness: right-handed participants; (5) age 15–60 years; (6) domain: cognition; and (7) subdomain: reasoning. Fifty-four papers with 155 suitable experiments with a total of 2,457 participants were found (see Appendix A). In those studies in which the samples included participants with clinical conditions only the analyses with healthy controls were included. As seen in the Appendix, reasoning tasks varied across studies including the interpretation of metaphors, categorization between abstract and concrete words, tests of intelligence, problems solving and theory of mind tests. Co-activation coordinates in MNI space were exported to text files. Analysis of Likelihood Estimation (ALE) over the pooled data was then performed utilizing GingerALE (provided also by Brainmap.org). ALE maps were thresholded at p < .05 corrected for multiple comparisons utilizing the false discovery rate technique. Only clusters of 1,000 or more cubic mm where accepted as valid clusters. ALE results were overlaid onto an anatomical template suitable for MNI coordinates, also provided by BrainMap.org. For this purpose, we utilized the Multi-Image Analysis GUI (Mango) (http://ric.uthscsa.edu/mango/), Mosaics of 4 × 4 insets of transversal fusioned images were generated utilizing a plugin of the same tool, selecting every other image, starting on image No. 10, and exported to a 2D-jpg image. Query 2: Inhibition Search conditions were the same as those used in Study 1, except for subdomain: for this case set to “inhibition”. Seventy-seven papers with 191 suitable experiments with a total of 3,517 participants were found (see Appendix B). As indicated in the Appendix, different tasks were included in the assessment of inhibitory control, most of them using the Go-NoGo paradigm. In those studies in which the samples included participants with clinical conditions only the analyses with healthy controls were included. Subsequently, (ALE) meta-analysis was performed utilizing the same technique and settings described for the first meta-analysis. Appendix C presents the general characteristics of the populations used in the different meta-analyses included in this paper. Second Level: Contrast Analysis Contrast analyses of the two datasets were performed utilizing the GingerALE tool. For this purpose, inhibition and reasoning thresholded data images were uploaded into the software as Data Set 1 and Data Set 2, respectively. The foci coordinates of both domains were pooled in a single text file. Results were thresholded at 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons with False Discovery Rate method. Only clusters larger than 1,000 mm3 were accepted as valid clusters. To correct for study sizes (Eickhoff, Bzdok, Laird, Kurth & Fox, 2012), GingerALE creates simulated data to find after many permutations of possible subtraction a voxel-wise null-hypothesis p value image, to show where the true data’s values sit on the distribution of values in that voxel. 10,000 permutations were utilized for this purpose. ALE values were converted to Z scores to show the significance of the difference. Two outputs were obtained: (1) inhibition map subtracted from Reasoning map (R > I contrast); (2) reasoning map subtracted from Inhibition map (I > R contrast); ALE computes contrasts as simple voxel value subtraction, against a null-hypothesis derived from the number of random permutations. Lateralization indexes (LI) based on the sum of cluster sizes per hemisphere were calculated for each group activation and the two contrasts utilizing the equation: LI = (Voxels Left – Voxels Right)/(Total voxels in both hemispheres). LI between −1.0 and −0.2 will be judged lateralized to the right; LI between 0.20 and 1.0 will be judged lateralized to the left. Values between −0.2 and 0.2 will be taken as symmetrical activation. There is not an accepted value to be used as cut-off score for considering clusters to be left-lateralized, right-lateralized, or bilateral. Some authors use 0.25 (e.g., Lehericy et al., 2000), other authors use 0.1 (e.g., Yuan et al., 2006); nonetheless, seemingly it is more frequent to use 0.2 (e.g., Deblaere et al., 2004). We decided to use 0.2 as a cut-off score. Results Reasoning Table 1 presents the main clusters of activation related to reasoning. Fig. 1 illustrates the resultant map of activation. Ten different clusters were found, four related to the left hemisphere, three to the right hemisphere, and three both to the left and the right hemisphere. ALE scores are quite similarly distributed between both hemispheres, with no significant lateralization (LI = −0.011). Cluster #1 involves left parietal areas (BA7—superior parietal lobe and BA40—supramarginal gyrus) and the posterior cingulate bilaterally (BA31). Cluster #2 is quite similar to Cluster #3, but in the opposite hemisphere; it includes BA9—middel frontal gurys, BA6—premotor cortex, BA10—prefrtonal, BA45—pars triangularis and BA46—anterior middle frontal gytus. Cluster #4 is located in the right hemisphere, specifically in BA7—superior parietal lobe, BA19—interior occipital gyrus, and BA31—dorsal posterior cingulate area. Cluster #5 is bilateral involving BA6 and also BA32 in the right. Clusters #6 and #7 report activation located in the claustra in both sides, but a close inspection shows that they indeed correspond to insular activation. Cluster #8 corresponds to the left BA6. The last two clusters (Clusters #9 and #10) are located subcortically, in the basal ganglia and thalami. Table 1. Main loci of brain activity related to reasoning by ALE Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 7, 40, 31; Right 31 18,032 Cluster #2  Right 9, 6, 10, 45 14,088 Cluster #3  Left 9, 6, 10, 46 13,520 Cluster #4  Right 7, 19, 31 9,152 Cluster #5  Right 6; Left 32, 6 7,504 Cluster #6  Left insula 4,064 Cluster #7  Right insula 3,744 Cluster #8  Left 6 2,864 Cluster #9  Right caudate, right thalamus, left thalamus 2,472 Cluster #10  Left lentiform nucleus, left thalamus 2,184 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 7, 40, 31; Right 31 18,032 Cluster #2  Right 9, 6, 10, 45 14,088 Cluster #3  Left 9, 6, 10, 46 13,520 Cluster #4  Right 7, 19, 31 9,152 Cluster #5  Right 6; Left 32, 6 7,504 Cluster #6  Left insula 4,064 Cluster #7  Right insula 3,744 Cluster #8  Left 6 2,864 Cluster #9  Right caudate, right thalamus, left thalamus 2,472 Cluster #10  Left lentiform nucleus, left thalamus 2,184 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation. BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA7 = superior parietal lobe; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA10 = anterior prefrontal cortex; BA19 = associative visual cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA45 = pars triangularis ; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Table 1. Main loci of brain activity related to reasoning by ALE Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 7, 40, 31; Right 31 18,032 Cluster #2  Right 9, 6, 10, 45 14,088 Cluster #3  Left 9, 6, 10, 46 13,520 Cluster #4  Right 7, 19, 31 9,152 Cluster #5  Right 6; Left 32, 6 7,504 Cluster #6  Left insula 4,064 Cluster #7  Right insula 3,744 Cluster #8  Left 6 2,864 Cluster #9  Right caudate, right thalamus, left thalamus 2,472 Cluster #10  Left lentiform nucleus, left thalamus 2,184 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 7, 40, 31; Right 31 18,032 Cluster #2  Right 9, 6, 10, 45 14,088 Cluster #3  Left 9, 6, 10, 46 13,520 Cluster #4  Right 7, 19, 31 9,152 Cluster #5  Right 6; Left 32, 6 7,504 Cluster #6  Left insula 4,064 Cluster #7  Right insula 3,744 Cluster #8  Left 6 2,864 Cluster #9  Right caudate, right thalamus, left thalamus 2,472 Cluster #10  Left lentiform nucleus, left thalamus 2,184 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation. BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA7 = superior parietal lobe; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA10 = anterior prefrontal cortex; BA19 = associative visual cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA45 = pars triangularis ; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Reasoning. Functional connectivity map using Meta-Analytic Connectivity Modeling. Sixteen transversal descending cuts have been selected from the brain MRI anatomical volume. Left hemisphere appears on the left side (neurological convention). Clusters are color coded for intensity from low (red) to high (yellow). Main clusters are circled at the most representative level and numbered according with their respective cluster number (see Table 1). Note: some areas belonging to the same cluster may appear disconnected due to the discontinuity of the sampling cuts. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Reasoning. Functional connectivity map using Meta-Analytic Connectivity Modeling. Sixteen transversal descending cuts have been selected from the brain MRI anatomical volume. Left hemisphere appears on the left side (neurological convention). Clusters are color coded for intensity from low (red) to high (yellow). Main clusters are circled at the most representative level and numbered according with their respective cluster number (see Table 1). Note: some areas belonging to the same cluster may appear disconnected due to the discontinuity of the sampling cuts. Summarizing, both hemispheres and same brain areas are activated in a relatively symmetrical and similar manner during the performance of reasoning tasks. These areas include: (a) a frontal activation area involving some premotor, dorsomedial and frontopolar zones; (b) a parietal area including the superior parietal area and extending towards the inferior parietal (left) and the cingulate gyrus and the occipital (right); (c) the mesial extension of the premotor areas. These are the three major areas involved in the “reasoning circuit”. But also—even though in a lesser degree; (d) the insula; and (e) two subcortical areas, located at the level of the basal ganglia and the thalamus. Inhibition Control Table 2 and Fig. 2 present the main loci of brain connectivity for the inhibition condition. Twelve different clusters were found, eight related to the left hemisphere, and four to the right hemisphere. The first one, however, was particularly large (34,408 mm3), almost twice as large as the second and third, and about 30 times larger than the last two clusters of activation. Cluster #1 was located in the right hemisphere, involving the anterior insula as well as the premotor area and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Cluster #2 included left BA6, BA32 and BA31, and right BA6, and BA32; that means, it is situated in the mesial aspect of the cerebral hemispheres involving the supplementary motor area and the cingulate gyrus. Cluster #3 was a left parietal cluster (BA7, BA40) but also posterior cingulate (BA31). Cluster #4 was a left cluster involving the area of the insula and precentral gyrus and extending subcortically to the caudate and the lenticular nucleus; it is quite similar to cluster #6, but in the opposite hemisphere. Cluster #5 was found in the left hemisphere, involving the insula (BA13) and the parietal areas BA7, BA40, and BA39. Cluster #7 was a left frontal cluster, including the middle and precentral frontal gyri. Cluster #8 was a left prefrontal/premotor cluster of activation. The last four clusters were smaller than 2,000 mm3; they included the left prefrontal areas BA10 and BA9, the left posterior cingulate cortex (BA23), the right inferior temporal gyrus and the homologous left area. Global activation showed a LI of −0.261 indicating a hemispheric mild right lateralization. Table 2 Main loci of brain activity related to Inhibition by ALE Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right insula, 9, 6, 8, 47 34,408 Cluster #2  Left 6, 32, 31; Right 6, 32 21,512 Cluster #3  Right 40, 7, 31; Left 7 18,360 Cluster #4  Left Insula, caudate, lentiform nucleus, precentral gyrus 11,720 Cluster #5  Left 7, 40, 39, 13 11,352 Cluster #6  Right lentiform nucleus, thalamus, caudate 6,328 Cluster #7  Left middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus 3,824 Cluster #8  Left 9, 6 2,080 Cluster #9  Left 10, 9 1,688 Cluster #10  Left 23 1,504 Cluster #11  Right inferior temporal gyrus 1,320 Cluster #12  Left 37 1,088 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right insula, 9, 6, 8, 47 34,408 Cluster #2  Left 6, 32, 31; Right 6, 32 21,512 Cluster #3  Right 40, 7, 31; Left 7 18,360 Cluster #4  Left Insula, caudate, lentiform nucleus, precentral gyrus 11,720 Cluster #5  Left 7, 40, 39, 13 11,352 Cluster #6  Right lentiform nucleus, thalamus, caudate 6,328 Cluster #7  Left middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus 3,824 Cluster #8  Left 9, 6 2,080 Cluster #9  Left 10, 9 1,688 Cluster #10  Left 23 1,504 Cluster #11  Right inferior temporal gyrus 1,320 Cluster #12  Left 37 1,088 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation. BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA7 = superior parietal lobe; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA10 = anterior prefrontal cortex; BA13 = insula; BA19 = associative visual cortex; BA23 = ventral posterior cingulate cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA37 = fusiform gyrus BA39 = angular gyrus; BA40 = supramarginal gyrus; BA45 = pars triangularis; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA47 = pars orbitalis (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Table 2 Main loci of brain activity related to Inhibition by ALE Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right insula, 9, 6, 8, 47 34,408 Cluster #2  Left 6, 32, 31; Right 6, 32 21,512 Cluster #3  Right 40, 7, 31; Left 7 18,360 Cluster #4  Left Insula, caudate, lentiform nucleus, precentral gyrus 11,720 Cluster #5  Left 7, 40, 39, 13 11,352 Cluster #6  Right lentiform nucleus, thalamus, caudate 6,328 Cluster #7  Left middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus 3,824 Cluster #8  Left 9, 6 2,080 Cluster #9  Left 10, 9 1,688 Cluster #10  Left 23 1,504 Cluster #11  Right inferior temporal gyrus 1,320 Cluster #12  Left 37 1,088 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right insula, 9, 6, 8, 47 34,408 Cluster #2  Left 6, 32, 31; Right 6, 32 21,512 Cluster #3  Right 40, 7, 31; Left 7 18,360 Cluster #4  Left Insula, caudate, lentiform nucleus, precentral gyrus 11,720 Cluster #5  Left 7, 40, 39, 13 11,352 Cluster #6  Right lentiform nucleus, thalamus, caudate 6,328 Cluster #7  Left middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus 3,824 Cluster #8  Left 9, 6 2,080 Cluster #9  Left 10, 9 1,688 Cluster #10  Left 23 1,504 Cluster #11  Right inferior temporal gyrus 1,320 Cluster #12  Left 37 1,088 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation. BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA7 = superior parietal lobe; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA10 = anterior prefrontal cortex; BA13 = insula; BA19 = associative visual cortex; BA23 = ventral posterior cingulate cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA37 = fusiform gyrus BA39 = angular gyrus; BA40 = supramarginal gyrus; BA45 = pars triangularis; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA47 = pars orbitalis (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Fig. 2. View largeDownload slide Inhibition. Functional connectivity map using Meta-Analytic Connectivity Modeling. Image uses same conventions than previous one. Main clusters have been circled with their numbers corresponding to cluster numbers. Note that cluster 1 extends from right insula to lateral and dorsal aspect of the frontal lobe (three circles numbered as 1 have been placed in different cuts). Left precentral and right ganglio-basal clusters mirroring clusters 7 and 4, respectively, have not been circled to avoid cluttering. Fig. 2. View largeDownload slide Inhibition. Functional connectivity map using Meta-Analytic Connectivity Modeling. Image uses same conventions than previous one. Main clusters have been circled with their numbers corresponding to cluster numbers. Note that cluster 1 extends from right insula to lateral and dorsal aspect of the frontal lobe (three circles numbered as 1 have been placed in different cuts). Left precentral and right ganglio-basal clusters mirroring clusters 7 and 4, respectively, have not been circled to avoid cluttering. In summary, it was found, (a) a very large focus of activation observed in the right hemisphere, including the insula, the premotor area and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; (b) a second focus of activation, including mesial aspect of the cerebral hemispheres involving the supplementary motor areas and the cingulate gyri; (c) symmetrical clusters of activation in the right and left, including the superior and inferior parietal areas; (d) bilateral activation of the basal ganglia and right thalamus; and (e) a relatively weak activation of the left posterior cingulate gyrus and right posterior inferior temporal gyrus and fusiform gyrus. Contrast Analysis Areas more involved in reasoning than in inhibitory control Subtracting the brain areas involved in inhibitory control from the reasoning areas, it was deduced those areas were participating in reasoning more preferentially than in inhibitory control (R > I). Results are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 3 (red clusters). Table 3 Main loci of brain: reasoning > inhibition Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 46, 9, 6, 8 7,824 Cluster #2  Left 39, 40 3,392 Cluster #3  Left 23, Right 31 1,744 Cluster #4  Left 6 1,240 Cluster #5  Right 6 1,224 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 46, 9, 6, 8 7,824 Cluster #2  Left 39, 40 3,392 Cluster #3  Left 23, Right 31 1,744 Cluster #4  Left 6 1,240 Cluster #5  Right 6 1,224 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation. BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA8 = premotor–frontal eye field; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA23 = ventral posterior cingulate cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA37 = fusiform gyrus BA39 = angular gyrus; BA40 = supramarginal gyrus; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Table 3 Main loci of brain: reasoning > inhibition Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 46, 9, 6, 8 7,824 Cluster #2  Left 39, 40 3,392 Cluster #3  Left 23, Right 31 1,744 Cluster #4  Left 6 1,240 Cluster #5  Right 6 1,224 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Left 46, 9, 6, 8 7,824 Cluster #2  Left 39, 40 3,392 Cluster #3  Left 23, Right 31 1,744 Cluster #4  Left 6 1,240 Cluster #5  Right 6 1,224 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation. BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA8 = premotor–frontal eye field; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA23 = ventral posterior cingulate cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA37 = fusiform gyrus BA39 = angular gyrus; BA40 = supramarginal gyrus; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Fig. 3. View largeDownload slide Contrasts. Clusters have been numbered in a consecutive manner. Red to yellow clusters: reasoning > inhibition. Main clusters correspond to left BA6, 8, 9, and 46 (circle 4); left BA39 and 40 (circle 2); and left BA23 and right 31 in the posterior cingulate gyrus (circle 6). Blue clusters: inhibition > reasoning. Main clusters correspond to left BA 6, bilateral BA23 and right BA32 (circle 1); right insula (BA13) and right BA47 (circle 8); right BA9 (circle 3); bilateral thalami and basal ganglia (circle 7); right BA7, 39 and 40 (circle 5). Of note is the right dominant lateralization of inhibition and the left lateralization for reasoning. Fig. 3. View largeDownload slide Contrasts. Clusters have been numbered in a consecutive manner. Red to yellow clusters: reasoning > inhibition. Main clusters correspond to left BA6, 8, 9, and 46 (circle 4); left BA39 and 40 (circle 2); and left BA23 and right 31 in the posterior cingulate gyrus (circle 6). Blue clusters: inhibition > reasoning. Main clusters correspond to left BA 6, bilateral BA23 and right BA32 (circle 1); right insula (BA13) and right BA47 (circle 8); right BA9 (circle 3); bilateral thalami and basal ganglia (circle 7); right BA7, 39 and 40 (circle 5). Of note is the right dominant lateralization of inhibition and the left lateralization for reasoning. It was observed that there are two major and three weaker brain areas involved in reasoning more than in inhibitory control. Both major areas are located in the left hemisphere, and include, on one hand a frontal area—BA46, BA9, BA6, and BA8—and on the other, a parietal lobe area—BA39, BA40. In addition, three weaker clusters were found: one bilateral involving the posterior cingulate gyrus; and the other two located in BA6, bilaterally. The LI for this contrast show a global strong leftward lateralization (LI = 0.858). In summary, the major conclusion is that left frontal and parietal areas are more directly involved in reasoning than in inhibition control. Areas more involved in inhibitory control than in reasoning Subtracting the brain areas involved in reasoning from the inhibitory control areas, it was deduced those areas were participating in the inhibitory control tasks more than in the reasoning tasks (I > R). Results are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 3 (blue clusters). Table 4. Main loci of brain: inhibition > reasoning Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right 24, 32; Left 6, 24 10,528 Cluster #2  Right 13, 47 5,872 Cluster #3  Right 9 5,720 Cluster #4  Left 13, putamen, thalamus 5,144 Cluster #5  Right 13, 39, 40, 7 4,592 Cluster #6  Right thalamus, putamen 2,888 Cluster #7  Right 6 1,648 Cluster #8  Right 32 1,512 Cluster #9  Left 22, 40 1,160 Cluster #10  Right 7 1,096 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right 24, 32; Left 6, 24 10,528 Cluster #2  Right 13, 47 5,872 Cluster #3  Right 9 5,720 Cluster #4  Left 13, putamen, thalamus 5,144 Cluster #5  Right 13, 39, 40, 7 4,592 Cluster #6  Right thalamus, putamen 2,888 Cluster #7  Right 6 1,648 Cluster #8  Right 32 1,512 Cluster #9  Left 22, 40 1,160 Cluster #10  Right 7 1,096 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation; BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA7 = superior parietal lobe; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA10 = anterior prefrontal cortex; BA13 = insula; BA19 = associative visual cortex; BA22 = superior temporal gyrus; BA24 = ventral anterior cingulate cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA37 = fusiform gyrus BA39 = angular gyrus; BA40 = supramarginal gyrus; BA45 = pars triangularis; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA47 = pars orbitalis (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Table 4. Main loci of brain: inhibition > reasoning Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right 24, 32; Left 6, 24 10,528 Cluster #2  Right 13, 47 5,872 Cluster #3  Right 9 5,720 Cluster #4  Left 13, putamen, thalamus 5,144 Cluster #5  Right 13, 39, 40, 7 4,592 Cluster #6  Right thalamus, putamen 2,888 Cluster #7  Right 6 1,648 Cluster #8  Right 32 1,512 Cluster #9  Left 22, 40 1,160 Cluster #10  Right 7 1,096 Side—Brodmann area (BA) Volume (mm3) Cluster #1  Right 24, 32; Left 6, 24 10,528 Cluster #2  Right 13, 47 5,872 Cluster #3  Right 9 5,720 Cluster #4  Left 13, putamen, thalamus 5,144 Cluster #5  Right 13, 39, 40, 7 4,592 Cluster #6  Right thalamus, putamen 2,888 Cluster #7  Right 6 1,648 Cluster #8  Right 32 1,512 Cluster #9  Left 22, 40 1,160 Cluster #10  Right 7 1,096 Note: ALE = Analysis of Likelihood Estimation; BA6 = supplementary motor area; BA7 = superior parietal lobe; BA9 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA10 = anterior prefrontal cortex; BA13 = insula; BA19 = associative visual cortex; BA22 = superior temporal gyrus; BA24 = ventral anterior cingulate cortex; BA31 = dorsal posterior cingulate cortex; BA32 = dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; BA37 = fusiform gyrus BA39 = angular gyrus; BA40 = supramarginal gyrus; BA45 = pars triangularis; BA46 = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; BA47 = pars orbitalis (see Appendix D for the names of the different Brodmann areas). Ten clusters of activation were found, seven at the right, two at the left, and one bilateral. The largest one includes BA24 in both the right and left hemisphere, and BA32 in the right and BA6 in the left; hence these clusters correspond to the supplementary motor area extending towards the anterior cingulate gyrus. Cluster #2 and #3 were located in the right hemisphere and include the anterior insula (BA13) and the prefrontal cortex areas BA47 and BA9. Cluster #4 is a left cluster including the insula and extending subcortically toward the putamen and thalamus. It is relatively homologous to cluster #6. Cluster #5 is a right cluster including the insula and the parietal lobe. Cluster #7 and cluster #8 have a mesial location, including the premotor area and the cingulate. Cluster #9 includes BA22 and BA40 in the left. The last cluster (cluster#10) consists of right BA7. The LI for this contrast, discarding cluster#1 as it shows bilateral representation, suggests a global strong rightward lateralization (LI = –0.574). In summary, results indicate that (a) a significant predominant activation of the right hemisphere is observed in inhibition tasks, involving specially the premotor/prefrontal area, and the insula/parietal zones; (b) an increased activation is observed bilaterally in some subcortical areas, in particular, the thalamus and the putamen; and (c) in some other cortical areas an increased activation is observed when performing inhibition tasks; these other areas include the premotor area BA6 and the cingulate area BA32. Discussion We present here for the first time a meta-analytic study contrasting two core executive functions (reasoning and inhibition) utilizing ALE methods. Our results confirm our hypotheses that inhibition and reasoning share activation areas in prefrontal lobes; it also suggests distinct subcortical and cortical pre and post-Rolandic areas involved in inhibition control and reasoning. We also observed that there is a brain asymmetry for each of these functions consisting in a rightward lateralization for inhibition and leftward lateralization for reasoning. Of note is the frequent significant involvement of the anterior insula, the involvement of the thalami and putamen, and the minimal involvement of the temporal lobe, virtually non-existing. Our purpose was not to do a simple standard meta-analysis of fMRI results, in which case the output does not involve hypothesis demonstration but instead only yields the description of results. Our purpose has been to utilize a meta-analytic approach of the coordinates of activations on domain-specific tasks, as the substract to feed the Activation Likelihood Estimate algorithm to compare fMRI results in two large groups. The method has been utilized previously by many authors. According to Eickhoff and colleagues (2012) ALE is a widely used technique for “coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging data”, which determines the convergence of foci reported from different experiments. The results of comparisons between groups (second level analysis) may then be compared utilizing standard statistics, e.g., p values, and other mathematical proofs allowing hypothesis testing, and demonstrations. Activation foci found in this meta-analysis could potentially indicate which parts of the brain are necessary for executive functions, that is, which are included in the “executive functions brain system”; however, it could also be conjectured that they are activated because they provide some information or support to the cognitive task that is analyzed. Nonetheless, considering the significant amount of research studies included in the current meta-analysis, it may be assumed that the activation foci found across different studies are indeed indicating the crucial brain areas involved in executive functions. Another crucial question in interpreting current results refers to the specificity of the activation. That is, are the activation foci really specific to executive functions tasks? Or could they be found during the performance of other tasks? An optimal control to answer this question would be to have a baseline activation and compare it with the target task activation. Noteworthy, this is a type of control that is usually required when analyzing the involvement of a brain area in a particular behavior. In other words, this control is included in the studies that were selected for the current meta-analysis. To have obtained strong divergent lateralization for inhibition and reasoning with the contrasts but not with the maps of meta-analytic activation on each group is intriguing. It suggests that the advantage of each hemisphere is in strength but not in extent. It also suggests that both hemispheres are capable of supporting the function with one of them more proficient on the task, which would be the reason the pooling data-LI is symmetric. We found a right dominant lateralization of inhibition and left lateralization for reasoning. This finding is congruent with contemporary literature in the area, which indicates that the left hemisphere is significantly involved in reasoning tasks (e.g., Boroojerdi et al., 2001; Goel & Dolan, 2004; Goel, Gold, Kapur & Houle, 1998; Haier et al., 1988; Langdon & Warrington, 2000) whereas the right hemisphere has a fundamental participation in inhibitory control (e.g., Aron et al. 2004; Casey et al., 1997; Garavan, Ross & Stein, 1999 ; Hampshire et al. 2010). Current results may have important theoretical and clinical implications. They may serve as a point of departure to further characterize the distinct circuits involved in diverse subcomponents of executive functions; for instance, morality, time perception, working memory, etc. The delineation of different subcomponents of executive functions can contribute to the understanding of the neurological bases of human cognition, taking into consideration that there is not an agreement yet about the unity or diversity of executive functions (Ardila, 2008; Duncan & Owen, 2000; Miyake et al., 2000; Niendam et al., 2012). They also can contribute to understand the complexity of the executive disorders observed in cases of brain pathology, taking into consideration the heterogeneity of the executive function syndrome (Godefroy, 2003; Miyake, 2000). Many limitations in our study have to be recognized. The use of a specific database—Brainmap—results in an unavoidable bias. The authors are aware that many more articles have described brain activation during executive function tasks, but they are not included in this specific database. Despite this limitation, the authors estimate the number of studies/participants/experiments entering the pooling-data was large and reflects the state of the art in fMRI of executive functions. A limitation of the current study is how executive functioning was defined across the studies; while there was a more homogenous objective paradigm used in the definition of inhibitory control, the reasoning paradigms were much more heterogeneous and less operationally defined, increasing the possibility that other cognitive functions besides reasoning were involved while performing these tasks. However, the consistency of findings with prior publications seems to dissipate this concern. Inhibition control has been used as a rather generic term. Extrapolation of conclusions into the vast domain of inhibition control is troublesome. However, as stated before, motor inhibition should be at the base of other more complex control-inhibitory functions. The importance of motor encoding/processing in high complex cognitive functions and representations have been highlighted previously (Koziol, Budding & Chidekel, 2012). An additional limitation must be considered. It has been well established that there is publication bias in different scientific areas, including in meta-analytic studies (van Enst, Ochodo, Scholten, Hooft & Leeflang, 2014). As a general rule, only studies supporting significant differences get published; negative results tend to be ignored. Evidently, this publication bias can significantly affect the results of meta-analysis. Furthermore, there is also a potential bias at the individual study level, and the quality and significance of different studies included in any meta-analysis can be quite different. We are also aware of the limitations collecting and pooling studies from different sources and the affect it could have in the result analysis. Of special importance is the diversity of paradigms utilizing different stimuli (visual, auditory, somatosensory), the involvement of motor responses, and the need of stringent controls to prevent cognitive noise activation. However, we feel that the obtained results truly represent the commonality of the target condition. No other explanation has that no motor activation was obtained in the motor inhibition pooling activation in spite that the vast majority of participants were performing a motor task. Nor visual or auditory activation was obtained in regardless of the modality of presentation of the stimuli. All “activations” related to stimulus or response existing in the control condition should only appear with negative sign signal in the target condition. This type of responses was not taken into account, as explicitly explained in methods (inclusion: only positive activations). In conclusion, a number of complex cognitive and control functions have been attributed to the prefrontal lobes. They share a number of brain areas, but the strength with which they are involved, are dissociated between the hemispheres. The left hemisphere is more involved in reasoning; the right hemisphere is more involved in inhibition. Conflict of Interest Dr Byron Bernal is President and owner of fMRI Consulting Inc. Acknowledgment Our gratitude to Deven Christopher for her editorial support. Appendix Appendix A. Studies included in reasoning Publication Paradigm n Foci Acuna, Eliassen, Donoghue, and Sanes (2002) Transitive Inference – Visual Height Comparison 15 17 Aziz-Zadeh, Wilson, Rizzolatti, and Iacoboni (2006) Metaphorical Phrases > Literal Phrases 12 2 Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2009) Aha Solutions > Search Solutions 12 8 Castelli, Happé, Frith, and Frith (2000) Theory of Mind (ToM) > Random 6 10 Castelli et al. (2000) Random > ToM 6 1 Castelli et al. (2000) Correlation: Activation vs. Intentionality Score 6 9 Decety, Jackson, Sommerville, Chaminade, and Meltzoff (2004) Cooperation vs. Independent 12 8 Decety et al. (2004) Competition vs. Independent 12 10 Decety et al. (2004) Cooperation vs. Competition 12 9 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Metaphor > Literal 16 6 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Congruent > Incongruent 16 10 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Incongruent > Congruent 16 3 Ebisch et al. (2012) High-Fluid Intelligence (Gf) > Low-Gf 10 2 Ebisch et al. (2012) Induction Conjunction Analysis 10 5 Ebisch et al. (2012) Visualization Conjunction Analysis 10 3 Fairhall, Anzellotti, Ubaldi, and Caramazza (2014) Main effect, Person 16 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Main effect, Place 16 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Person 16 1 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Place 16 4 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 2 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 5 Feinstein, Stein, and Paulus (2006) Action Selection: Uncertain > Certain 16 2 Feinstein et al. (2006) Action Selection > Outcome 16 2 Fincham et al. (2002) Planning 8 13 Fletcher et al. (2001) Decreases in activity during initial learning 12 9 Fletcher et al. (2001) Main effects of all unpredictable events 12 8 Fletcher et al. (2001) Modulation of unpredictability-related responses by type of causal relationship 12 5 Fletcher et al. (2001) Effects of different unpredictable events within the same learning session 12 4 Fukui et al. (2006) Human–Computer 16 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) ((Abstract Reasoning + Concrete Reasoning) – (Abstract Baseline + Concrete Baseline)) 14 19 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline 14 12 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) Conjunction (Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline)(Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline) 14 21 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) – (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) – (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) 14 3 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Concrete Reasoning 14 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Abstract Reasoning 14 3 Grabner et al. (2009) Procedural > Retrieval 28 9 Grèzes, Frith, and Passingham (2004) Actions Judged to Reflect Deceptive Intent 11 11 Hampshire, Thompson, Duncan, and Owen (2011) Peak Activation Coordinates During Reasoning 16 11 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 6 Hampshire et al. (2011) Rule Complexity – Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Analogical Distance – Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 3 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Separate Panels 21 5 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Separate Panels 21 5 Hargreaves, White, Pexman, Pittman, and Goodyear (2012) Animal SCT > Concrete SCT 15 16 Hargreaves et al. (2012) Concrete SCT > Animal SCT 15 3 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, Whole Evaluation Period 18 5 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Volume 18 6 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Two Volumes 18 13 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Rest, Mechanical < Rest 45 2 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Rest, Social < Rest 45 3 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Mechanical 45 42 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Social 45 32 Jimura, Konishi, and Miyashita (2004) Negative - Neutral Feedback 21 15 Kalbfleisch, Van Meter, and Zeffiro (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty (Hard > Easy) 14 18 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by response correctness (Correct > incorrect) 14 12 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty and correctness interaction 14 1 Konishi et al. (1998) Three Dimensional – (Two + One Dimensional) 7 5 Konishi et al. (2002) A Minus B (2 WCST variants) 16 16 Konishi et al. (2002) B minus C (2 WCST variants) 16 9 Kounios et al. (2006) Insight preparation > Noninsight Preparation 20 6 Kounios et al. (2006) Noninsight preparation > Insight preparation Minus Control Feedback (Increases) 20 1 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Relational Complexity 8 7 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Distractor 8 5 Kroger et al. (2002) Complexity levels 3–4 Minus Distractor levels 3–4 8 8 Kroger, Nystrom, Cohen, and Johnson-Laird (2008) Type of Problem (Logic > Calculation) 16 16 Kroger et al. (2008) Level of Difficulty (Hard > Easy) 16 4 Kroger et al. (2008) Type × Difficulty Interaction 12 4 Lauro, Tettamanti, Cappa, and Papagno (2008) Conjunction among all conditions 22 31 Lauro et al. (2008) Idiomatic > Literal 22 10 Lauro et al. (2008) Literal > Idiomatic 22 4 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Rest 12 20 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Literal 12 3 Luo et al. (2003) Analogy > Semantic Judgment 10 11 Luo et al. (2003) Event A > Baseline 7 39 Luo et al. (2013) NSI > OSI 19 1 Luo et al. (2013) OSI > NSI 19 5 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2007) Novel Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 15 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 14 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 5 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 3 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Conventional Metaphors 15 3 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Nonsensical Sentences 15 4 Mashal et al. (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 1 Monchi, Petrides, Petre, Worsley, and Dagher (2001) Matching After Negative Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 6 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback 11 30 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Positive Feedback minus Control Feedback (Increases) 11 4 Monchi et al. (2001) Matching After Positive Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 3 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback minus Receiving Positive Feedback 11 9 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Negative Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 17 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Negative Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 8 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Positive Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 7 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Positive Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 2 Nagahama et al. (2001) Set Shifting Task 6 14 Nagahama et al. (2001) Reversal Task 6 13 Nakahara, Hayashi, Konishi, and Miyashita (2002) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test 10 13 Newman, Willoughby, and Pruce (2011) Number Easy vs. Fixation 15 9 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard vs. Fixation 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy vs. Fixation 15 14 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard vs. Fixation 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Word > Number 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Number > Word 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Hard > Easy 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Interaction 15 1 Newman et al. (2011) Number Easy Correlation with Reading Span 15 5 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard Correlation with Reading Span 15 11 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy Correlation With Reading Span 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard Correlation With Reading Span 15 3 Perfetti et al. (2009) Activations 8 11 Poldrack, Prabhakaran, Seger, and Gabrieli (1999) Weather Prediction > Baseline, Activations 8 15 Poldrack et al. (1999) Learning Related Increases in Activation 8 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 10 Prado and Noveck (2007) Falsification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Affirmative Throughout: 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 16 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification, Hits Only: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 14 Preusse, Van Der Meer, Deshpande, Krueger, and Wartenburger (2011) Task Difficulty (Diagonal > Horizontal > Vertical > Identity) 18 6 Preusse et al. (2011) HI-FluIQ > AVE-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) AVE-FluIQ > HI-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) Task Difficulty Fluid Intelligence 18 3 Rao et al. (1997) Conceptual Reasoning minus Control 11 19 Rapp, Leube, Erb, Grodd, and Kircher (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Baseline 15 11 Rapp et al. (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 3 Stringaris, Medford, Giampietro, Brammer, and David (2007) Metaphoric > Literal 11 9 Stringaris et al. (2007) Metaphoric > Non-Meaningful 11 1 Stringaris et al. (2007) Non-Meaningful > Metaphoric 11 17 Stringaris et al. (2007) Literal > Metaphoric 11 7 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) > Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) 12 8 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) > Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) > Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) > Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) 12 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) All Sentences (Literal, Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Non-Word Sentences 10 3 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Metaphors (Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Literal Sentences 10 6 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy-Familiar Metaphors Literal Sentences > 10 11 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) > Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) 10 2 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) 10 8 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 2 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > PC 15 8 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > PC 15 5 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > Cognitive ToM 15 3 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > Affective ToM 15 7 Sripada et al. (2009) Decision-Making Game > Fixation, Healthy Controls 26 9 Ross and Olson (2012) Fame > No fame 11 10 Ross and Olson (2012) No fame > Fame 11 7 Tian et al. (2011) Successful > Unsuccessful Preparation 16 7 Uchiyama et al. (2006) Sarcasm Detection: Sarcastic plus Non-Sarcastic Responses minus Unconnected 20 10 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Planning vs. Counting, Normals 22 19 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Increases Correlating With Increased Task Load, Normals 22 21 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Goal-Search Task – Visuomotor Task, Activations 13 8 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Back-Track Probability 13 3 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Expected Hidden Current Position Entropy 13 3 Publication Paradigm n Foci Acuna, Eliassen, Donoghue, and Sanes (2002) Transitive Inference – Visual Height Comparison 15 17 Aziz-Zadeh, Wilson, Rizzolatti, and Iacoboni (2006) Metaphorical Phrases > Literal Phrases 12 2 Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2009) Aha Solutions > Search Solutions 12 8 Castelli, Happé, Frith, and Frith (2000) Theory of Mind (ToM) > Random 6 10 Castelli et al. (2000) Random > ToM 6 1 Castelli et al. (2000) Correlation: Activation vs. Intentionality Score 6 9 Decety, Jackson, Sommerville, Chaminade, and Meltzoff (2004) Cooperation vs. Independent 12 8 Decety et al. (2004) Competition vs. Independent 12 10 Decety et al. (2004) Cooperation vs. Competition 12 9 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Metaphor > Literal 16 6 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Congruent > Incongruent 16 10 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Incongruent > Congruent 16 3 Ebisch et al. (2012) High-Fluid Intelligence (Gf) > Low-Gf 10 2 Ebisch et al. (2012) Induction Conjunction Analysis 10 5 Ebisch et al. (2012) Visualization Conjunction Analysis 10 3 Fairhall, Anzellotti, Ubaldi, and Caramazza (2014) Main effect, Person 16 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Main effect, Place 16 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Person 16 1 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Place 16 4 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 2 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 5 Feinstein, Stein, and Paulus (2006) Action Selection: Uncertain > Certain 16 2 Feinstein et al. (2006) Action Selection > Outcome 16 2 Fincham et al. (2002) Planning 8 13 Fletcher et al. (2001) Decreases in activity during initial learning 12 9 Fletcher et al. (2001) Main effects of all unpredictable events 12 8 Fletcher et al. (2001) Modulation of unpredictability-related responses by type of causal relationship 12 5 Fletcher et al. (2001) Effects of different unpredictable events within the same learning session 12 4 Fukui et al. (2006) Human–Computer 16 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) ((Abstract Reasoning + Concrete Reasoning) – (Abstract Baseline + Concrete Baseline)) 14 19 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline 14 12 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) Conjunction (Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline)(Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline) 14 21 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) – (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) – (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) 14 3 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Concrete Reasoning 14 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Abstract Reasoning 14 3 Grabner et al. (2009) Procedural > Retrieval 28 9 Grèzes, Frith, and Passingham (2004) Actions Judged to Reflect Deceptive Intent 11 11 Hampshire, Thompson, Duncan, and Owen (2011) Peak Activation Coordinates During Reasoning 16 11 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 6 Hampshire et al. (2011) Rule Complexity – Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Analogical Distance – Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 3 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Separate Panels 21 5 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Separate Panels 21 5 Hargreaves, White, Pexman, Pittman, and Goodyear (2012) Animal SCT > Concrete SCT 15 16 Hargreaves et al. (2012) Concrete SCT > Animal SCT 15 3 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, Whole Evaluation Period 18 5 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Volume 18 6 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Two Volumes 18 13 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Rest, Mechanical < Rest 45 2 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Rest, Social < Rest 45 3 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Mechanical 45 42 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Social 45 32 Jimura, Konishi, and Miyashita (2004) Negative - Neutral Feedback 21 15 Kalbfleisch, Van Meter, and Zeffiro (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty (Hard > Easy) 14 18 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by response correctness (Correct > incorrect) 14 12 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty and correctness interaction 14 1 Konishi et al. (1998) Three Dimensional – (Two + One Dimensional) 7 5 Konishi et al. (2002) A Minus B (2 WCST variants) 16 16 Konishi et al. (2002) B minus C (2 WCST variants) 16 9 Kounios et al. (2006) Insight preparation > Noninsight Preparation 20 6 Kounios et al. (2006) Noninsight preparation > Insight preparation Minus Control Feedback (Increases) 20 1 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Relational Complexity 8 7 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Distractor 8 5 Kroger et al. (2002) Complexity levels 3–4 Minus Distractor levels 3–4 8 8 Kroger, Nystrom, Cohen, and Johnson-Laird (2008) Type of Problem (Logic > Calculation) 16 16 Kroger et al. (2008) Level of Difficulty (Hard > Easy) 16 4 Kroger et al. (2008) Type × Difficulty Interaction 12 4 Lauro, Tettamanti, Cappa, and Papagno (2008) Conjunction among all conditions 22 31 Lauro et al. (2008) Idiomatic > Literal 22 10 Lauro et al. (2008) Literal > Idiomatic 22 4 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Rest 12 20 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Literal 12 3 Luo et al. (2003) Analogy > Semantic Judgment 10 11 Luo et al. (2003) Event A > Baseline 7 39 Luo et al. (2013) NSI > OSI 19 1 Luo et al. (2013) OSI > NSI 19 5 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2007) Novel Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 15 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 14 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 5 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 3 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Conventional Metaphors 15 3 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Nonsensical Sentences 15 4 Mashal et al. (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 1 Monchi, Petrides, Petre, Worsley, and Dagher (2001) Matching After Negative Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 6 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback 11 30 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Positive Feedback minus Control Feedback (Increases) 11 4 Monchi et al. (2001) Matching After Positive Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 3 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback minus Receiving Positive Feedback 11 9 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Negative Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 17 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Negative Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 8 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Positive Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 7 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Positive Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 2 Nagahama et al. (2001) Set Shifting Task 6 14 Nagahama et al. (2001) Reversal Task 6 13 Nakahara, Hayashi, Konishi, and Miyashita (2002) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test 10 13 Newman, Willoughby, and Pruce (2011) Number Easy vs. Fixation 15 9 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard vs. Fixation 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy vs. Fixation 15 14 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard vs. Fixation 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Word > Number 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Number > Word 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Hard > Easy 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Interaction 15 1 Newman et al. (2011) Number Easy Correlation with Reading Span 15 5 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard Correlation with Reading Span 15 11 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy Correlation With Reading Span 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard Correlation With Reading Span 15 3 Perfetti et al. (2009) Activations 8 11 Poldrack, Prabhakaran, Seger, and Gabrieli (1999) Weather Prediction > Baseline, Activations 8 15 Poldrack et al. (1999) Learning Related Increases in Activation 8 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 10 Prado and Noveck (2007) Falsification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Affirmative Throughout: 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 16 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification, Hits Only: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 14 Preusse, Van Der Meer, Deshpande, Krueger, and Wartenburger (2011) Task Difficulty (Diagonal > Horizontal > Vertical > Identity) 18 6 Preusse et al. (2011) HI-FluIQ > AVE-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) AVE-FluIQ > HI-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) Task Difficulty Fluid Intelligence 18 3 Rao et al. (1997) Conceptual Reasoning minus Control 11 19 Rapp, Leube, Erb, Grodd, and Kircher (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Baseline 15 11 Rapp et al. (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 3 Stringaris, Medford, Giampietro, Brammer, and David (2007) Metaphoric > Literal 11 9 Stringaris et al. (2007) Metaphoric > Non-Meaningful 11 1 Stringaris et al. (2007) Non-Meaningful > Metaphoric 11 17 Stringaris et al. (2007) Literal > Metaphoric 11 7 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) > Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) 12 8 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) > Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) > Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) > Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) 12 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) All Sentences (Literal, Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Non-Word Sentences 10 3 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Metaphors (Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Literal Sentences 10 6 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy-Familiar Metaphors Literal Sentences > 10 11 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) > Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) 10 2 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) 10 8 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 2 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > PC 15 8 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > PC 15 5 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > Cognitive ToM 15 3 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > Affective ToM 15 7 Sripada et al. (2009) Decision-Making Game > Fixation, Healthy Controls 26 9 Ross and Olson (2012) Fame > No fame 11 10 Ross and Olson (2012) No fame > Fame 11 7 Tian et al. (2011) Successful > Unsuccessful Preparation 16 7 Uchiyama et al. (2006) Sarcasm Detection: Sarcastic plus Non-Sarcastic Responses minus Unconnected 20 10 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Planning vs. Counting, Normals 22 19 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Increases Correlating With Increased Task Load, Normals 22 21 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Goal-Search Task – Visuomotor Task, Activations 13 8 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Back-Track Probability 13 3 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Expected Hidden Current Position Entropy 13 3 Note: ToM = Theory of Mind; SCT = Semantic Categorization Task; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Appendix A. Studies included in reasoning Publication Paradigm n Foci Acuna, Eliassen, Donoghue, and Sanes (2002) Transitive Inference – Visual Height Comparison 15 17 Aziz-Zadeh, Wilson, Rizzolatti, and Iacoboni (2006) Metaphorical Phrases > Literal Phrases 12 2 Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2009) Aha Solutions > Search Solutions 12 8 Castelli, Happé, Frith, and Frith (2000) Theory of Mind (ToM) > Random 6 10 Castelli et al. (2000) Random > ToM 6 1 Castelli et al. (2000) Correlation: Activation vs. Intentionality Score 6 9 Decety, Jackson, Sommerville, Chaminade, and Meltzoff (2004) Cooperation vs. Independent 12 8 Decety et al. (2004) Competition vs. Independent 12 10 Decety et al. (2004) Cooperation vs. Competition 12 9 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Metaphor > Literal 16 6 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Congruent > Incongruent 16 10 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Incongruent > Congruent 16 3 Ebisch et al. (2012) High-Fluid Intelligence (Gf) > Low-Gf 10 2 Ebisch et al. (2012) Induction Conjunction Analysis 10 5 Ebisch et al. (2012) Visualization Conjunction Analysis 10 3 Fairhall, Anzellotti, Ubaldi, and Caramazza (2014) Main effect, Person 16 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Main effect, Place 16 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Person 16 1 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Place 16 4 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 2 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 5 Feinstein, Stein, and Paulus (2006) Action Selection: Uncertain > Certain 16 2 Feinstein et al. (2006) Action Selection > Outcome 16 2 Fincham et al. (2002) Planning 8 13 Fletcher et al. (2001) Decreases in activity during initial learning 12 9 Fletcher et al. (2001) Main effects of all unpredictable events 12 8 Fletcher et al. (2001) Modulation of unpredictability-related responses by type of causal relationship 12 5 Fletcher et al. (2001) Effects of different unpredictable events within the same learning session 12 4 Fukui et al. (2006) Human–Computer 16 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) ((Abstract Reasoning + Concrete Reasoning) – (Abstract Baseline + Concrete Baseline)) 14 19 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline 14 12 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) Conjunction (Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline)(Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline) 14 21 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) – (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) – (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) 14 3 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Concrete Reasoning 14 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Abstract Reasoning 14 3 Grabner et al. (2009) Procedural > Retrieval 28 9 Grèzes, Frith, and Passingham (2004) Actions Judged to Reflect Deceptive Intent 11 11 Hampshire, Thompson, Duncan, and Owen (2011) Peak Activation Coordinates During Reasoning 16 11 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 6 Hampshire et al. (2011) Rule Complexity – Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Analogical Distance – Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 3 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Separate Panels 21 5 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Separate Panels 21 5 Hargreaves, White, Pexman, Pittman, and Goodyear (2012) Animal SCT > Concrete SCT 15 16 Hargreaves et al. (2012) Concrete SCT > Animal SCT 15 3 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, Whole Evaluation Period 18 5 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Volume 18 6 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Two Volumes 18 13 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Rest, Mechanical < Rest 45 2 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Rest, Social < Rest 45 3 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Mechanical 45 42 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Social 45 32 Jimura, Konishi, and Miyashita (2004) Negative - Neutral Feedback 21 15 Kalbfleisch, Van Meter, and Zeffiro (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty (Hard > Easy) 14 18 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by response correctness (Correct > incorrect) 14 12 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty and correctness interaction 14 1 Konishi et al. (1998) Three Dimensional – (Two + One Dimensional) 7 5 Konishi et al. (2002) A Minus B (2 WCST variants) 16 16 Konishi et al. (2002) B minus C (2 WCST variants) 16 9 Kounios et al. (2006) Insight preparation > Noninsight Preparation 20 6 Kounios et al. (2006) Noninsight preparation > Insight preparation Minus Control Feedback (Increases) 20 1 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Relational Complexity 8 7 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Distractor 8 5 Kroger et al. (2002) Complexity levels 3–4 Minus Distractor levels 3–4 8 8 Kroger, Nystrom, Cohen, and Johnson-Laird (2008) Type of Problem (Logic > Calculation) 16 16 Kroger et al. (2008) Level of Difficulty (Hard > Easy) 16 4 Kroger et al. (2008) Type × Difficulty Interaction 12 4 Lauro, Tettamanti, Cappa, and Papagno (2008) Conjunction among all conditions 22 31 Lauro et al. (2008) Idiomatic > Literal 22 10 Lauro et al. (2008) Literal > Idiomatic 22 4 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Rest 12 20 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Literal 12 3 Luo et al. (2003) Analogy > Semantic Judgment 10 11 Luo et al. (2003) Event A > Baseline 7 39 Luo et al. (2013) NSI > OSI 19 1 Luo et al. (2013) OSI > NSI 19 5 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2007) Novel Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 15 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 14 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 5 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 3 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Conventional Metaphors 15 3 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Nonsensical Sentences 15 4 Mashal et al. (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 1 Monchi, Petrides, Petre, Worsley, and Dagher (2001) Matching After Negative Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 6 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback 11 30 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Positive Feedback minus Control Feedback (Increases) 11 4 Monchi et al. (2001) Matching After Positive Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 3 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback minus Receiving Positive Feedback 11 9 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Negative Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 17 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Negative Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 8 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Positive Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 7 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Positive Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 2 Nagahama et al. (2001) Set Shifting Task 6 14 Nagahama et al. (2001) Reversal Task 6 13 Nakahara, Hayashi, Konishi, and Miyashita (2002) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test 10 13 Newman, Willoughby, and Pruce (2011) Number Easy vs. Fixation 15 9 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard vs. Fixation 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy vs. Fixation 15 14 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard vs. Fixation 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Word > Number 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Number > Word 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Hard > Easy 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Interaction 15 1 Newman et al. (2011) Number Easy Correlation with Reading Span 15 5 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard Correlation with Reading Span 15 11 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy Correlation With Reading Span 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard Correlation With Reading Span 15 3 Perfetti et al. (2009) Activations 8 11 Poldrack, Prabhakaran, Seger, and Gabrieli (1999) Weather Prediction > Baseline, Activations 8 15 Poldrack et al. (1999) Learning Related Increases in Activation 8 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 10 Prado and Noveck (2007) Falsification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Affirmative Throughout: 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 16 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification, Hits Only: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 14 Preusse, Van Der Meer, Deshpande, Krueger, and Wartenburger (2011) Task Difficulty (Diagonal > Horizontal > Vertical > Identity) 18 6 Preusse et al. (2011) HI-FluIQ > AVE-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) AVE-FluIQ > HI-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) Task Difficulty Fluid Intelligence 18 3 Rao et al. (1997) Conceptual Reasoning minus Control 11 19 Rapp, Leube, Erb, Grodd, and Kircher (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Baseline 15 11 Rapp et al. (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 3 Stringaris, Medford, Giampietro, Brammer, and David (2007) Metaphoric > Literal 11 9 Stringaris et al. (2007) Metaphoric > Non-Meaningful 11 1 Stringaris et al. (2007) Non-Meaningful > Metaphoric 11 17 Stringaris et al. (2007) Literal > Metaphoric 11 7 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) > Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) 12 8 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) > Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) > Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) > Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) 12 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) All Sentences (Literal, Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Non-Word Sentences 10 3 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Metaphors (Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Literal Sentences 10 6 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy-Familiar Metaphors Literal Sentences > 10 11 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) > Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) 10 2 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) 10 8 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 2 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > PC 15 8 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > PC 15 5 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > Cognitive ToM 15 3 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > Affective ToM 15 7 Sripada et al. (2009) Decision-Making Game > Fixation, Healthy Controls 26 9 Ross and Olson (2012) Fame > No fame 11 10 Ross and Olson (2012) No fame > Fame 11 7 Tian et al. (2011) Successful > Unsuccessful Preparation 16 7 Uchiyama et al. (2006) Sarcasm Detection: Sarcastic plus Non-Sarcastic Responses minus Unconnected 20 10 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Planning vs. Counting, Normals 22 19 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Increases Correlating With Increased Task Load, Normals 22 21 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Goal-Search Task – Visuomotor Task, Activations 13 8 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Back-Track Probability 13 3 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Expected Hidden Current Position Entropy 13 3 Publication Paradigm n Foci Acuna, Eliassen, Donoghue, and Sanes (2002) Transitive Inference – Visual Height Comparison 15 17 Aziz-Zadeh, Wilson, Rizzolatti, and Iacoboni (2006) Metaphorical Phrases > Literal Phrases 12 2 Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2009) Aha Solutions > Search Solutions 12 8 Castelli, Happé, Frith, and Frith (2000) Theory of Mind (ToM) > Random 6 10 Castelli et al. (2000) Random > ToM 6 1 Castelli et al. (2000) Correlation: Activation vs. Intentionality Score 6 9 Decety, Jackson, Sommerville, Chaminade, and Meltzoff (2004) Cooperation vs. Independent 12 8 Decety et al. (2004) Competition vs. Independent 12 10 Decety et al. (2004) Cooperation vs. Competition 12 9 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Metaphor > Literal 16 6 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Congruent > Incongruent 16 10 Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Incongruent > Congruent 16 3 Ebisch et al. (2012) High-Fluid Intelligence (Gf) > Low-Gf 10 2 Ebisch et al. (2012) Induction Conjunction Analysis 10 5 Ebisch et al. (2012) Visualization Conjunction Analysis 10 3 Fairhall, Anzellotti, Ubaldi, and Caramazza (2014) Main effect, Person 16 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Main effect, Place 16 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Person 16 1 Fairhall et al. (2014) Category × Task, Place 16 4 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 9 Fairhall et al. (2014) Picture-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 8 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Person 17 2 Fairhall et al. (2014) Word-cued Semantic Access, Place 17 5 Feinstein, Stein, and Paulus (2006) Action Selection: Uncertain > Certain 16 2 Feinstein et al. (2006) Action Selection > Outcome 16 2 Fincham et al. (2002) Planning 8 13 Fletcher et al. (2001) Decreases in activity during initial learning 12 9 Fletcher et al. (2001) Main effects of all unpredictable events 12 8 Fletcher et al. (2001) Modulation of unpredictability-related responses by type of causal relationship 12 5 Fletcher et al. (2001) Effects of different unpredictable events within the same learning session 12 4 Fukui et al. (2006) Human–Computer 16 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) ((Abstract Reasoning + Concrete Reasoning) – (Abstract Baseline + Concrete Baseline)) 14 19 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline 14 12 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) Conjunction (Abstract Reasoning – Abstract Baseline)(Concrete Reasoning – Concrete Baseline) 14 21 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) – (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) 14 5 Goel and Dolan (2001) (Concrete Reasoning + Baseline) – (Abstract Reasoning + Baseline) 14 3 Goel and Dolan (2001) Abstract Reasoning – Concrete Reasoning 14 2 Goel and Dolan (2001) Concrete Reasoning – Abstract Reasoning 14 3 Grabner et al. (2009) Procedural > Retrieval 28 9 Grèzes, Frith, and Passingham (2004) Actions Judged to Reflect Deceptive Intent 11 11 Hampshire, Thompson, Duncan, and Owen (2011) Peak Activation Coordinates During Reasoning 16 11 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 6 Hampshire et al. (2011) Rule Complexity – Analogical Distance for Simultaneous Panels 16 9 Hampshire et al. (2011) Analogical Distance – Rule Complexity for Simultaneous Panels 16 3 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Rule Complexity for Separate Panels 21 5 Hampshire et al. (2011) Main Effect of Analogical Distance for Separate Panels 21 5 Hargreaves, White, Pexman, Pittman, and Goodyear (2012) Animal SCT > Concrete SCT 15 16 Hargreaves et al. (2012) Concrete SCT > Animal SCT 15 3 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, Whole Evaluation Period 18 5 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Volume 18 6 Herwig et al. (2011) High Risk > Low Risk, First Two Volumes 18 13 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Rest, Mechanical < Rest 45 2 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Rest, Social < Rest 45 3 Jack et al. (2013) Social > Mechanical 45 42 Jack et al. (2013) Mechanical > Social 45 32 Jimura, Konishi, and Miyashita (2004) Negative - Neutral Feedback 21 15 Kalbfleisch, Van Meter, and Zeffiro (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty (Hard > Easy) 14 18 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by response correctness (Correct > incorrect) 14 12 Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Areas modulated by task difficulty and correctness interaction 14 1 Konishi et al. (1998) Three Dimensional – (Two + One Dimensional) 7 5 Konishi et al. (2002) A Minus B (2 WCST variants) 16 16 Konishi et al. (2002) B minus C (2 WCST variants) 16 9 Kounios et al. (2006) Insight preparation > Noninsight Preparation 20 6 Kounios et al. (2006) Noninsight preparation > Insight preparation Minus Control Feedback (Increases) 20 1 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Relational Complexity 8 7 Kroger et al. (2002) Linear Trend Analysis for Distractor 8 5 Kroger et al. (2002) Complexity levels 3–4 Minus Distractor levels 3–4 8 8 Kroger, Nystrom, Cohen, and Johnson-Laird (2008) Type of Problem (Logic > Calculation) 16 16 Kroger et al. (2008) Level of Difficulty (Hard > Easy) 16 4 Kroger et al. (2008) Type × Difficulty Interaction 12 4 Lauro, Tettamanti, Cappa, and Papagno (2008) Conjunction among all conditions 22 31 Lauro et al. (2008) Idiomatic > Literal 22 10 Lauro et al. (2008) Literal > Idiomatic 22 4 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Rest 12 20 Lee and Dapretto (2006) Nonliteral > Literal 12 3 Luo et al. (2003) Analogy > Semantic Judgment 10 11 Luo et al. (2003) Event A > Baseline 7 39 Luo et al. (2013) NSI > OSI 19 1 Luo et al. (2013) OSI > NSI 19 5 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2007) Novel Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 15 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Unrelated Words 15 14 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 5 Mashal et al. (2007) Conventional Metaphors > Literal Expressions 15 3 Mashal et al. (2007) Novel Metaphors > Conventional Metaphors 15 3 Mashal, Faust, Hendler, and Jung-Beeman (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Nonsensical Sentences 15 4 Mashal et al. (2009) Novel Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 1 Monchi, Petrides, Petre, Worsley, and Dagher (2001) Matching After Negative Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 6 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback 11 30 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Positive Feedback minus Control Feedback (Increases) 11 4 Monchi et al. (2001) Matching After Positive Feedback minus Control Matching (Increases) 11 3 Monchi et al. (2001) Receiving Negative Feedback minus Receiving Positive Feedback 11 9 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Negative Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 17 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Negative Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 8 Monchi et al. (2004) Receiving Positive Feedback – Control Feedback, Normals 9 7 Monchi et al. (2004) Matching After Positive Feedback – Control Matching, Normals 9 2 Nagahama et al. (2001) Set Shifting Task 6 14 Nagahama et al. (2001) Reversal Task 6 13 Nakahara, Hayashi, Konishi, and Miyashita (2002) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test 10 13 Newman, Willoughby, and Pruce (2011) Number Easy vs. Fixation 15 9 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard vs. Fixation 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy vs. Fixation 15 14 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard vs. Fixation 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Word > Number 15 10 Newman et al. (2011) Number > Word 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Hard > Easy 15 17 Newman et al. (2011) Interaction 15 1 Newman et al. (2011) Number Easy Correlation with Reading Span 15 5 Newman et al. (2011) Number Hard Correlation with Reading Span 15 11 Newman et al. (2011) Word Easy Correlation With Reading Span 15 6 Newman et al. (2011) Word Hard Correlation With Reading Span 15 3 Perfetti et al. (2009) Activations 8 11 Poldrack, Prabhakaran, Seger, and Gabrieli (1999) Weather Prediction > Baseline, Activations 8 15 Poldrack et al. (1999) Learning Related Increases in Activation 8 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 10 Prado and Noveck (2007) Falsification: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 6 Prado and Noveck (2007) Affirmative Throughout: 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 16 Prado and Noveck (2007) Verification, Hits Only: 2-Mismatch > 1-Mismatch > 0-Mismatch 20 14 Preusse, Van Der Meer, Deshpande, Krueger, and Wartenburger (2011) Task Difficulty (Diagonal > Horizontal > Vertical > Identity) 18 6 Preusse et al. (2011) HI-FluIQ > AVE-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) AVE-FluIQ > HI-FluIQ 18 2 Preusse et al. (2011) Task Difficulty Fluid Intelligence 18 3 Rao et al. (1997) Conceptual Reasoning minus Control 11 19 Rapp, Leube, Erb, Grodd, and Kircher (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Baseline 15 11 Rapp et al. (2004) Metaphoric Sentences > Literal Sentences 15 3 Stringaris, Medford, Giampietro, Brammer, and David (2007) Metaphoric > Literal 11 9 Stringaris et al. (2007) Metaphoric > Non-Meaningful 11 1 Stringaris et al. (2007) Non-Meaningful > Metaphoric 11 17 Stringaris et al. (2007) Literal > Metaphoric 11 7 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) > Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) 12 8 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Irrelevant (IRM) > Literal Followed by Irrelevant (IRL) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) > Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) 12 4 Stringaris et al. (2006) Metaphoric Followed by Relevant (RM) > Literal Followed by Relevant (RL) 12 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) All Sentences (Literal, Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Non-Word Sentences 10 3 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Metaphors (Easy-Familiar, Easy-Unfamiliar, Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Literal Sentences 10 6 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy-Familiar Metaphors Literal Sentences > 10 11 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) > Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 4 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Unfamiliar Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Familiar Metaphors (Easy-Familiar) 10 2 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) > Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) 10 8 Schmidt and Seger (2009) Difficult Metaphors (Difficult-Unfamiliar) > Easy Metaphors (Easy-Unfamiliar) 10 2 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > PC 15 8 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > PC 15 5 Sebastian et al. (2012) Affective ToM > Cognitive ToM 15 3 Sebastian et al. (2012) Cognitive ToM > Affective ToM 15 7 Sripada et al. (2009) Decision-Making Game > Fixation, Healthy Controls 26 9 Ross and Olson (2012) Fame > No fame 11 10 Ross and Olson (2012) No fame > Fame 11 7 Tian et al. (2011) Successful > Unsuccessful Preparation 16 7 Uchiyama et al. (2006) Sarcasm Detection: Sarcastic plus Non-Sarcastic Responses minus Unconnected 20 10 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Planning vs. Counting, Normals 22 19 van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005) Increases Correlating With Increased Task Load, Normals 22 21 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Goal-Search Task – Visuomotor Task, Activations 13 8 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Back-Track Probability 13 3 Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Correlation between Evoked Activity and Expected Hidden Current Position Entropy 13 3 Note: ToM = Theory of Mind; SCT = Semantic Categorization Task; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Appendix B. Studies included in inhibition control Publication Paradigm n Foci Altshuler et al. (2005) NoGo > Go, Normals 13 4 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop – Go 5 35 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop Inhibit – Stop Respond 5 13 Asahi, Okamoto, Okada, Yamawaki, and Yokota (2004) Response Inhibition 17 11 Baglio et al. (2011) NoGo vs. Fixation, Healthy Controls 11 5 Bellgrove, Hester, and Garavan (2004) Response Inhibition 42 19 Bennett et al. (2009) No/Go – Go, Non-Exposed, Correct Trials 11 8 Bonnet et al. (2009) Initial Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Initial Go/No-go 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 5 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Response Time 19 6 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Education Level 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, and Snyder (2001) Conjunction Analysis 14 9 Braver et al. (2001) Disjunction Analysis 14 19 Brown, Goltz, Vilis, Ford, and Everling (2006) Antisaccade Response > Fixation 10 20 Brown et al. (2006) Nogo Response > Fixation 10 19 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Prosaccade Response 10 15 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Nogo Response 10 16 Brown, Vilis, and Everling (2007) Response, Antisaccade – Preparation, Antisaccade 11 11 Chevrier and Schachar (2010) Post-Error Slowing Activations 14 16 Chevrier, Noseworthy, and Schachar (2007) Successful Stop-Phase Activities 14 3 Chevrier et al. (2007) Unsuccessful Stop-Phase Activities 14 10 Chikazoe, Konishi, Asari, Jimura, and Miyashita (2007) Antisaccade – Control Saccade 24 54 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Stop vs. Uncertain-Go 22 57 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 8 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Conjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go + Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 19 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Disjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go but not Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 16 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Frequent-Go 25 52 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Infrequent-Go 25 52 Connolly et al. (2000) Anti-Saccade vs. Fixation 7 13 Connolly and colleagues (2000) Anti-Pointing vs. Fixation 7 20 Cross, Schmitt, and Grafton (2007) Activity during Movement Preparation (NoGo) 13 26 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Random Increasing (Early > Late) > Block Increasing (Early > Late) 13 4 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Block Increasing (Early > Late) > Random Increasing (Early > Late) 13 2 DeSouza, Menon, and Everling (2003) Selectively Activated for Saccades (Both Pro and Anti) 10 9 Duka (2011) A+ or B+ vs. C-– or D–, Reward vs. Non Reward 8 11 Duka (2011) (AB–) – (CD–), Incentive Conflict 8 6 Duka (2011) (A–) – (A+), Reversal 8 2 Duka (2011) (A+) – (A–), Reversal 8 1 Durston et al. (2003) Go > No Go, Healthy Controls 7 8 Durston (2006) Go > No-Go, Healthy Controls 11 2 Durston (2006) No-Go > Go, Healthy Controls 11 9 Durston (2006) Parametric effect of preceding number of Go Trials, Healthy Controls 11 3 Durston, Thomas, Worden, Yang, and Casey (2002) Go vs. No-Go 10 10 Ettinger et al. (2008) Standard Antisaccade 17 15 Ettinger et al. (2008) Saccade-by-Delay Interaction 17 15 Evers et al. (2006) NoGO Inhibition vs. Go, Experimental Session 13 17 Falconer (2008) No Go – Go, Normals 23 6 Fassbender et al. (2004) Tonic Activations for Fixed and Random SART 21 21 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Correct Inhibitions 21 8 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Commission Errors 21 12 Finger, Mitchell, Jones, and Blair (2008) Successful Extinction > Successful Baseline (Control) 19 3 Finger et al. (2008) Correct Hits > Correct Avoidance 19 6 Finger et al. (2008) Early Extinction Phase > Late Extinction Phase 19 8 Finger et al. (2008) Extinction > Baseline (Control) 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response Type × Phase 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Pair 19 1 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Phase × Pair 19 1 Ford, Goltz, Brown, and Everling (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Anti vs. Pro 10 8 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Correct Anti vs. Error Anti 10 3 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 2 Ford et al. (2005) Saccade period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 1 Garavan et al. (2002) Successful NoGos 14 16 Garavan et al. (2002) Errors 14 15 Garavan et al. (1999) Response Inhibition 14 14 Garavan, Ross, Kaufman, and Stein (2003) Task-related Performance 16 12 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related STOPS 16 7 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related ERRORS 16 5 Goldin, McRae, Ramel, and Gross (2008) Suppress > Watch, Negative 17 17 Goldin et al. (2008) Suppress > Reappraise 17 15 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Number Discrimination 10 12 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Number Discrimination 10 10 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Watch, Moral 10 7 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Decrease, Non-moral 10 13 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Decrease, Moral 10 1 Hester et al. (2004) Cued and Uncued Successful Response Inhibition 15 21 Hester et al. (2004) Cued vs. Uncued, Increases 15 10 Horn, Dolan, Elliott, Deakin, and Woodruff (2003) Go/No-Go > Go 21 14 Johnson-Frey, Newman-Norlund, and Grafton (2005) Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right 13 26 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left 13 13 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) (Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right) + (Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left) 13 15 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T1 10 12 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T2 10 8 Kaladjian et al. (2009b) NoGo > Go, Correct Responses, Healthy Controls 20 16 Kaladjian et al. (2007) Correct NoGo Trials vs. Correct Go Trials, Healthy Controls 21 11 Kelly et al. (2004) Fast and Slow Successful Response Inhibitions 15 23 Kiehl, Liddle, and Hopfinger (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission 14 4 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Correct Rejects 14 8 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission vs. Correct Rejects 14 2 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 2, Correct Hits 14 12 Kimmig et al. (2001) Pro-Saccade and Anti-Saccade 15 12 Konishi et al. (1998) No-Go Dominant Foci 5 19 Konishi, Jimura, Asari, and Miyashita (2003) Inhibition – Control, No Additional Task Knowledge 36 16 Konishi et al. (2003) Inhibition – Control, Additional Task Knowledge 16 21 Konishi et al. (1999) No-Go Dominant Area 6 1 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Targets, Healthy Controls 17 10 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Correct Rejections, Healthy Controls 17 8 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Commissions, Healthy Controls 17 5 Li et al. (2008) Stop Errors > Stop Successes 40 12 Li et al. (2008) Post-Stop Successes Go > Post-Stop Errors Go 40 17 Li, Chao, and Lee (2009) Increased Reaction Time vs. Decreased Reaction Time, Go-Trial 33 20 Liddle, Kiehl, and Smith (2001) Correct NoGo – Baseline 16 19 Liddle et al. (2001) Correct NoGo – Go 16 23 MacDonald, Carter, Kerns, Ursu, and Barch (2005) Non-Target vs. Target, Normals 28 4 MacDonald et al. (2005) Long vs. Short Delay, Normals 28 1 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Main Effect of Scan, Normals 17 6 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Cue by Scan Interaction, Normals 17 1 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Fixation 6 10 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Go 6 6 Maltby, Tolin, Worhunsky, O’Keefe, and Kiehl (2005) Correct Inhibition, Normals 14 5 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades vs. Rest 21 17 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades > Saccades 21 12 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Oddball (Go/No-Go) 11 18 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Go 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Oddball (Stop Task) 11 25 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Go 11 16 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks w/ Oddball 11 7 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Flanker Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and both Memory Working Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Stop Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 12 Mechelli, Viding, Pettersson‐Yeo, Tognin, and McGuire (2009) Go/Nogo > Fixation 7 16 Mechelli et al. (2009) Nogo > Go 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go > Nogo 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 7 1 Mechelli et al. (2009) Effect of twin pairs: Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 60 1 Menon, Adleman, White, Glover, and Reiss (2001) Incorrect NoGo – Correct NoGo 14 4 Menon et al. (2001) Go/NoGo – Go 14 13 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary No-Go Effects 48 3 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary Counting No-Go Effects 28 3 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Expected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Mulder et al. (2008) Expected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 4 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Pavuluri, Passarotti, Harral, and Sweeney (2010) Stop vs. Go, Healthy Controls, Follow-Up > Baseline 13 6 Pessiglione, Seymour, Flandin, Dolan, and Frith (2006) Reward Prediction Error, Positive Correlations 39 2 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Punishment Prediction Error, Negative Correlations 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, Go/NoGo 39 7 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Gain) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Loss) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pompei et al. (2011) Main Effect of Group: Interference minus Neutral 14 6 Pompei et al. (2011) Interference minus Neutral, Healthy Controls 48 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Go/No-Go Activation 15 12 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Stop Activation 15 6 Rubia et al. (2001) Activation Common to All Go/No-Go and Stop Task Versions 15 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Differences Between Generic Go/No-Go and Stop Task Activations 15 3 Rubia, Smith, Brammer, and Taylor (2003) NoGo, Successful Inhibition – NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition 20 2 Rubia et al. (2003) NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition – Go Response 20 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults 23 11 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adolescents 29 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults > Adolescents 23 1 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Positive Correlations with Age 23 3 Schiffer (2014) Conflict-related activity (Incongruent–Congruent) 21 11 Schiffer (2014) Error-related activity (All error trials–accurate Congruent trials) 21 8 Shane, Stevens, Harenski, and Kiehl (2008) Errors > Correct Responses, Performance Go and NoGo 21 13 Shane et al. (2008) Errors > Successful Inhibitions 21 8 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Responses 21 19 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Inhibitions 21 4 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors vs. Performed Errors 21 14 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations 30 10 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Negatively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 5 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Positively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 3 Sylvester et al. (2003) Switching and Inhibition 14 4 Sylvester et al. (2003) Inhibition > Switching 14 5 Tamm, Menon, and Reiss (2002) Go/NoGo - Go, Developing Controls 19 4 Townsend et al. (2012) NoGo minus Go, Healthy Controls 30 24 Ungar, Nestor, Niznikiewicz, Wible, and Kubicki (2010) Negative Priming: Incongruent Non-Primed vs. Primed, Healthy Controls 15 1 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop and Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop > Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Parametric Analysis 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Correct vs. Incorrect Stop 20 2 Watanabe et al. (2002) Areas Activated During NO-GO Phase 11 5 Watanabe et al. (2002) Specific Activation Areas During NO-GO Phase 11 4 Wood, Romero, Makale, and Grafman (2003) Social SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Social Semantic vs. Control 20 6 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial Semantic vs. Control 20 2 Zheng, Oka, Bokura, and Yamaguchi (2008) No-Go – Go (Go/No-Go) 18 8 Zheng et al. (2008) Stop – Go (Stop Signal) 18 10 De Zubicaray, Andrew, Zelaya, Williams, and Dumanoir (2000) Increases 8 15 De Zubicaray and colleagues (2000) Linear Increases With Number of Trials Equated Per Block 8 11 van Veen and Carter (2005) Semantically Incongruent > Congruent 14 6 van Veen and Carter (2005) Response-Incongruent > Semantically Incongruent 14 7 Publication Paradigm n Foci Altshuler et al. (2005) NoGo > Go, Normals 13 4 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop – Go 5 35 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop Inhibit – Stop Respond 5 13 Asahi, Okamoto, Okada, Yamawaki, and Yokota (2004) Response Inhibition 17 11 Baglio et al. (2011) NoGo vs. Fixation, Healthy Controls 11 5 Bellgrove, Hester, and Garavan (2004) Response Inhibition 42 19 Bennett et al. (2009) No/Go – Go, Non-Exposed, Correct Trials 11 8 Bonnet et al. (2009) Initial Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Initial Go/No-go 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 5 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Response Time 19 6 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Education Level 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, and Snyder (2001) Conjunction Analysis 14 9 Braver et al. (2001) Disjunction Analysis 14 19 Brown, Goltz, Vilis, Ford, and Everling (2006) Antisaccade Response > Fixation 10 20 Brown et al. (2006) Nogo Response > Fixation 10 19 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Prosaccade Response 10 15 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Nogo Response 10 16 Brown, Vilis, and Everling (2007) Response, Antisaccade – Preparation, Antisaccade 11 11 Chevrier and Schachar (2010) Post-Error Slowing Activations 14 16 Chevrier, Noseworthy, and Schachar (2007) Successful Stop-Phase Activities 14 3 Chevrier et al. (2007) Unsuccessful Stop-Phase Activities 14 10 Chikazoe, Konishi, Asari, Jimura, and Miyashita (2007) Antisaccade – Control Saccade 24 54 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Stop vs. Uncertain-Go 22 57 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 8 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Conjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go + Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 19 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Disjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go but not Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 16 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Frequent-Go 25 52 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Infrequent-Go 25 52 Connolly et al. (2000) Anti-Saccade vs. Fixation 7 13 Connolly and colleagues (2000) Anti-Pointing vs. Fixation 7 20 Cross, Schmitt, and Grafton (2007) Activity during Movement Preparation (NoGo) 13 26 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Random Increasing (Early > Late) > Block Increasing (Early > Late) 13 4 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Block Increasing (Early > Late) > Random Increasing (Early > Late) 13 2 DeSouza, Menon, and Everling (2003) Selectively Activated for Saccades (Both Pro and Anti) 10 9 Duka (2011) A+ or B+ vs. C-– or D–, Reward vs. Non Reward 8 11 Duka (2011) (AB–) – (CD–), Incentive Conflict 8 6 Duka (2011) (A–) – (A+), Reversal 8 2 Duka (2011) (A+) – (A–), Reversal 8 1 Durston et al. (2003) Go > No Go, Healthy Controls 7 8 Durston (2006) Go > No-Go, Healthy Controls 11 2 Durston (2006) No-Go > Go, Healthy Controls 11 9 Durston (2006) Parametric effect of preceding number of Go Trials, Healthy Controls 11 3 Durston, Thomas, Worden, Yang, and Casey (2002) Go vs. No-Go 10 10 Ettinger et al. (2008) Standard Antisaccade 17 15 Ettinger et al. (2008) Saccade-by-Delay Interaction 17 15 Evers et al. (2006) NoGO Inhibition vs. Go, Experimental Session 13 17 Falconer (2008) No Go – Go, Normals 23 6 Fassbender et al. (2004) Tonic Activations for Fixed and Random SART 21 21 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Correct Inhibitions 21 8 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Commission Errors 21 12 Finger, Mitchell, Jones, and Blair (2008) Successful Extinction > Successful Baseline (Control) 19 3 Finger et al. (2008) Correct Hits > Correct Avoidance 19 6 Finger et al. (2008) Early Extinction Phase > Late Extinction Phase 19 8 Finger et al. (2008) Extinction > Baseline (Control) 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response Type × Phase 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Pair 19 1 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Phase × Pair 19 1 Ford, Goltz, Brown, and Everling (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Anti vs. Pro 10 8 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Correct Anti vs. Error Anti 10 3 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 2 Ford et al. (2005) Saccade period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 1 Garavan et al. (2002) Successful NoGos 14 16 Garavan et al. (2002) Errors 14 15 Garavan et al. (1999) Response Inhibition 14 14 Garavan, Ross, Kaufman, and Stein (2003) Task-related Performance 16 12 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related STOPS 16 7 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related ERRORS 16 5 Goldin, McRae, Ramel, and Gross (2008) Suppress > Watch, Negative 17 17 Goldin et al. (2008) Suppress > Reappraise 17 15 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Number Discrimination 10 12 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Number Discrimination 10 10 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Watch, Moral 10 7 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Decrease, Non-moral 10 13 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Decrease, Moral 10 1 Hester et al. (2004) Cued and Uncued Successful Response Inhibition 15 21 Hester et al. (2004) Cued vs. Uncued, Increases 15 10 Horn, Dolan, Elliott, Deakin, and Woodruff (2003) Go/No-Go > Go 21 14 Johnson-Frey, Newman-Norlund, and Grafton (2005) Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right 13 26 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left 13 13 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) (Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right) + (Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left) 13 15 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T1 10 12 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T2 10 8 Kaladjian et al. (2009b) NoGo > Go, Correct Responses, Healthy Controls 20 16 Kaladjian et al. (2007) Correct NoGo Trials vs. Correct Go Trials, Healthy Controls 21 11 Kelly et al. (2004) Fast and Slow Successful Response Inhibitions 15 23 Kiehl, Liddle, and Hopfinger (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission 14 4 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Correct Rejects 14 8 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission vs. Correct Rejects 14 2 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 2, Correct Hits 14 12 Kimmig et al. (2001) Pro-Saccade and Anti-Saccade 15 12 Konishi et al. (1998) No-Go Dominant Foci 5 19 Konishi, Jimura, Asari, and Miyashita (2003) Inhibition – Control, No Additional Task Knowledge 36 16 Konishi et al. (2003) Inhibition – Control, Additional Task Knowledge 16 21 Konishi et al. (1999) No-Go Dominant Area 6 1 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Targets, Healthy Controls 17 10 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Correct Rejections, Healthy Controls 17 8 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Commissions, Healthy Controls 17 5 Li et al. (2008) Stop Errors > Stop Successes 40 12 Li et al. (2008) Post-Stop Successes Go > Post-Stop Errors Go 40 17 Li, Chao, and Lee (2009) Increased Reaction Time vs. Decreased Reaction Time, Go-Trial 33 20 Liddle, Kiehl, and Smith (2001) Correct NoGo – Baseline 16 19 Liddle et al. (2001) Correct NoGo – Go 16 23 MacDonald, Carter, Kerns, Ursu, and Barch (2005) Non-Target vs. Target, Normals 28 4 MacDonald et al. (2005) Long vs. Short Delay, Normals 28 1 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Main Effect of Scan, Normals 17 6 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Cue by Scan Interaction, Normals 17 1 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Fixation 6 10 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Go 6 6 Maltby, Tolin, Worhunsky, O’Keefe, and Kiehl (2005) Correct Inhibition, Normals 14 5 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades vs. Rest 21 17 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades > Saccades 21 12 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Oddball (Go/No-Go) 11 18 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Go 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Oddball (Stop Task) 11 25 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Go 11 16 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks w/ Oddball 11 7 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Flanker Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and both Memory Working Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Stop Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 12 Mechelli, Viding, Pettersson‐Yeo, Tognin, and McGuire (2009) Go/Nogo > Fixation 7 16 Mechelli et al. (2009) Nogo > Go 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go > Nogo 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 7 1 Mechelli et al. (2009) Effect of twin pairs: Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 60 1 Menon, Adleman, White, Glover, and Reiss (2001) Incorrect NoGo – Correct NoGo 14 4 Menon et al. (2001) Go/NoGo – Go 14 13 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary No-Go Effects 48 3 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary Counting No-Go Effects 28 3 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Expected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Mulder et al. (2008) Expected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 4 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Pavuluri, Passarotti, Harral, and Sweeney (2010) Stop vs. Go, Healthy Controls, Follow-Up > Baseline 13 6 Pessiglione, Seymour, Flandin, Dolan, and Frith (2006) Reward Prediction Error, Positive Correlations 39 2 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Punishment Prediction Error, Negative Correlations 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, Go/NoGo 39 7 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Gain) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Loss) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pompei et al. (2011) Main Effect of Group: Interference minus Neutral 14 6 Pompei et al. (2011) Interference minus Neutral, Healthy Controls 48 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Go/No-Go Activation 15 12 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Stop Activation 15 6 Rubia et al. (2001) Activation Common to All Go/No-Go and Stop Task Versions 15 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Differences Between Generic Go/No-Go and Stop Task Activations 15 3 Rubia, Smith, Brammer, and Taylor (2003) NoGo, Successful Inhibition – NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition 20 2 Rubia et al. (2003) NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition – Go Response 20 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults 23 11 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adolescents 29 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults > Adolescents 23 1 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Positive Correlations with Age 23 3 Schiffer (2014) Conflict-related activity (Incongruent–Congruent) 21 11 Schiffer (2014) Error-related activity (All error trials–accurate Congruent trials) 21 8 Shane, Stevens, Harenski, and Kiehl (2008) Errors > Correct Responses, Performance Go and NoGo 21 13 Shane et al. (2008) Errors > Successful Inhibitions 21 8 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Responses 21 19 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Inhibitions 21 4 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors vs. Performed Errors 21 14 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations 30 10 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Negatively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 5 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Positively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 3 Sylvester et al. (2003) Switching and Inhibition 14 4 Sylvester et al. (2003) Inhibition > Switching 14 5 Tamm, Menon, and Reiss (2002) Go/NoGo - Go, Developing Controls 19 4 Townsend et al. (2012) NoGo minus Go, Healthy Controls 30 24 Ungar, Nestor, Niznikiewicz, Wible, and Kubicki (2010) Negative Priming: Incongruent Non-Primed vs. Primed, Healthy Controls 15 1 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop and Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop > Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Parametric Analysis 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Correct vs. Incorrect Stop 20 2 Watanabe et al. (2002) Areas Activated During NO-GO Phase 11 5 Watanabe et al. (2002) Specific Activation Areas During NO-GO Phase 11 4 Wood, Romero, Makale, and Grafman (2003) Social SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Social Semantic vs. Control 20 6 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial Semantic vs. Control 20 2 Zheng, Oka, Bokura, and Yamaguchi (2008) No-Go – Go (Go/No-Go) 18 8 Zheng et al. (2008) Stop – Go (Stop Signal) 18 10 De Zubicaray, Andrew, Zelaya, Williams, and Dumanoir (2000) Increases 8 15 De Zubicaray and colleagues (2000) Linear Increases With Number of Trials Equated Per Block 8 11 van Veen and Carter (2005) Semantically Incongruent > Congruent 14 6 van Veen and Carter (2005) Response-Incongruent > Semantically Incongruent 14 7 Appendix B. Studies included in inhibition control Publication Paradigm n Foci Altshuler et al. (2005) NoGo > Go, Normals 13 4 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop – Go 5 35 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop Inhibit – Stop Respond 5 13 Asahi, Okamoto, Okada, Yamawaki, and Yokota (2004) Response Inhibition 17 11 Baglio et al. (2011) NoGo vs. Fixation, Healthy Controls 11 5 Bellgrove, Hester, and Garavan (2004) Response Inhibition 42 19 Bennett et al. (2009) No/Go – Go, Non-Exposed, Correct Trials 11 8 Bonnet et al. (2009) Initial Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Initial Go/No-go 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 5 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Response Time 19 6 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Education Level 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, and Snyder (2001) Conjunction Analysis 14 9 Braver et al. (2001) Disjunction Analysis 14 19 Brown, Goltz, Vilis, Ford, and Everling (2006) Antisaccade Response > Fixation 10 20 Brown et al. (2006) Nogo Response > Fixation 10 19 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Prosaccade Response 10 15 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Nogo Response 10 16 Brown, Vilis, and Everling (2007) Response, Antisaccade – Preparation, Antisaccade 11 11 Chevrier and Schachar (2010) Post-Error Slowing Activations 14 16 Chevrier, Noseworthy, and Schachar (2007) Successful Stop-Phase Activities 14 3 Chevrier et al. (2007) Unsuccessful Stop-Phase Activities 14 10 Chikazoe, Konishi, Asari, Jimura, and Miyashita (2007) Antisaccade – Control Saccade 24 54 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Stop vs. Uncertain-Go 22 57 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 8 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Conjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go + Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 19 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Disjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go but not Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 16 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Frequent-Go 25 52 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Infrequent-Go 25 52 Connolly et al. (2000) Anti-Saccade vs. Fixation 7 13 Connolly and colleagues (2000) Anti-Pointing vs. Fixation 7 20 Cross, Schmitt, and Grafton (2007) Activity during Movement Preparation (NoGo) 13 26 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Random Increasing (Early > Late) > Block Increasing (Early > Late) 13 4 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Block Increasing (Early > Late) > Random Increasing (Early > Late) 13 2 DeSouza, Menon, and Everling (2003) Selectively Activated for Saccades (Both Pro and Anti) 10 9 Duka (2011) A+ or B+ vs. C-– or D–, Reward vs. Non Reward 8 11 Duka (2011) (AB–) – (CD–), Incentive Conflict 8 6 Duka (2011) (A–) – (A+), Reversal 8 2 Duka (2011) (A+) – (A–), Reversal 8 1 Durston et al. (2003) Go > No Go, Healthy Controls 7 8 Durston (2006) Go > No-Go, Healthy Controls 11 2 Durston (2006) No-Go > Go, Healthy Controls 11 9 Durston (2006) Parametric effect of preceding number of Go Trials, Healthy Controls 11 3 Durston, Thomas, Worden, Yang, and Casey (2002) Go vs. No-Go 10 10 Ettinger et al. (2008) Standard Antisaccade 17 15 Ettinger et al. (2008) Saccade-by-Delay Interaction 17 15 Evers et al. (2006) NoGO Inhibition vs. Go, Experimental Session 13 17 Falconer (2008) No Go – Go, Normals 23 6 Fassbender et al. (2004) Tonic Activations for Fixed and Random SART 21 21 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Correct Inhibitions 21 8 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Commission Errors 21 12 Finger, Mitchell, Jones, and Blair (2008) Successful Extinction > Successful Baseline (Control) 19 3 Finger et al. (2008) Correct Hits > Correct Avoidance 19 6 Finger et al. (2008) Early Extinction Phase > Late Extinction Phase 19 8 Finger et al. (2008) Extinction > Baseline (Control) 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response Type × Phase 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Pair 19 1 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Phase × Pair 19 1 Ford, Goltz, Brown, and Everling (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Anti vs. Pro 10 8 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Correct Anti vs. Error Anti 10 3 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 2 Ford et al. (2005) Saccade period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 1 Garavan et al. (2002) Successful NoGos 14 16 Garavan et al. (2002) Errors 14 15 Garavan et al. (1999) Response Inhibition 14 14 Garavan, Ross, Kaufman, and Stein (2003) Task-related Performance 16 12 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related STOPS 16 7 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related ERRORS 16 5 Goldin, McRae, Ramel, and Gross (2008) Suppress > Watch, Negative 17 17 Goldin et al. (2008) Suppress > Reappraise 17 15 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Number Discrimination 10 12 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Number Discrimination 10 10 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Watch, Moral 10 7 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Decrease, Non-moral 10 13 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Decrease, Moral 10 1 Hester et al. (2004) Cued and Uncued Successful Response Inhibition 15 21 Hester et al. (2004) Cued vs. Uncued, Increases 15 10 Horn, Dolan, Elliott, Deakin, and Woodruff (2003) Go/No-Go > Go 21 14 Johnson-Frey, Newman-Norlund, and Grafton (2005) Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right 13 26 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left 13 13 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) (Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right) + (Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left) 13 15 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T1 10 12 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T2 10 8 Kaladjian et al. (2009b) NoGo > Go, Correct Responses, Healthy Controls 20 16 Kaladjian et al. (2007) Correct NoGo Trials vs. Correct Go Trials, Healthy Controls 21 11 Kelly et al. (2004) Fast and Slow Successful Response Inhibitions 15 23 Kiehl, Liddle, and Hopfinger (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission 14 4 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Correct Rejects 14 8 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission vs. Correct Rejects 14 2 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 2, Correct Hits 14 12 Kimmig et al. (2001) Pro-Saccade and Anti-Saccade 15 12 Konishi et al. (1998) No-Go Dominant Foci 5 19 Konishi, Jimura, Asari, and Miyashita (2003) Inhibition – Control, No Additional Task Knowledge 36 16 Konishi et al. (2003) Inhibition – Control, Additional Task Knowledge 16 21 Konishi et al. (1999) No-Go Dominant Area 6 1 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Targets, Healthy Controls 17 10 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Correct Rejections, Healthy Controls 17 8 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Commissions, Healthy Controls 17 5 Li et al. (2008) Stop Errors > Stop Successes 40 12 Li et al. (2008) Post-Stop Successes Go > Post-Stop Errors Go 40 17 Li, Chao, and Lee (2009) Increased Reaction Time vs. Decreased Reaction Time, Go-Trial 33 20 Liddle, Kiehl, and Smith (2001) Correct NoGo – Baseline 16 19 Liddle et al. (2001) Correct NoGo – Go 16 23 MacDonald, Carter, Kerns, Ursu, and Barch (2005) Non-Target vs. Target, Normals 28 4 MacDonald et al. (2005) Long vs. Short Delay, Normals 28 1 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Main Effect of Scan, Normals 17 6 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Cue by Scan Interaction, Normals 17 1 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Fixation 6 10 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Go 6 6 Maltby, Tolin, Worhunsky, O’Keefe, and Kiehl (2005) Correct Inhibition, Normals 14 5 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades vs. Rest 21 17 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades > Saccades 21 12 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Oddball (Go/No-Go) 11 18 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Go 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Oddball (Stop Task) 11 25 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Go 11 16 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks w/ Oddball 11 7 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Flanker Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and both Memory Working Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Stop Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 12 Mechelli, Viding, Pettersson‐Yeo, Tognin, and McGuire (2009) Go/Nogo > Fixation 7 16 Mechelli et al. (2009) Nogo > Go 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go > Nogo 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 7 1 Mechelli et al. (2009) Effect of twin pairs: Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 60 1 Menon, Adleman, White, Glover, and Reiss (2001) Incorrect NoGo – Correct NoGo 14 4 Menon et al. (2001) Go/NoGo – Go 14 13 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary No-Go Effects 48 3 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary Counting No-Go Effects 28 3 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Expected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Mulder et al. (2008) Expected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 4 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Pavuluri, Passarotti, Harral, and Sweeney (2010) Stop vs. Go, Healthy Controls, Follow-Up > Baseline 13 6 Pessiglione, Seymour, Flandin, Dolan, and Frith (2006) Reward Prediction Error, Positive Correlations 39 2 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Punishment Prediction Error, Negative Correlations 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, Go/NoGo 39 7 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Gain) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Loss) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pompei et al. (2011) Main Effect of Group: Interference minus Neutral 14 6 Pompei et al. (2011) Interference minus Neutral, Healthy Controls 48 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Go/No-Go Activation 15 12 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Stop Activation 15 6 Rubia et al. (2001) Activation Common to All Go/No-Go and Stop Task Versions 15 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Differences Between Generic Go/No-Go and Stop Task Activations 15 3 Rubia, Smith, Brammer, and Taylor (2003) NoGo, Successful Inhibition – NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition 20 2 Rubia et al. (2003) NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition – Go Response 20 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults 23 11 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adolescents 29 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults > Adolescents 23 1 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Positive Correlations with Age 23 3 Schiffer (2014) Conflict-related activity (Incongruent–Congruent) 21 11 Schiffer (2014) Error-related activity (All error trials–accurate Congruent trials) 21 8 Shane, Stevens, Harenski, and Kiehl (2008) Errors > Correct Responses, Performance Go and NoGo 21 13 Shane et al. (2008) Errors > Successful Inhibitions 21 8 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Responses 21 19 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Inhibitions 21 4 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors vs. Performed Errors 21 14 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations 30 10 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Negatively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 5 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Positively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 3 Sylvester et al. (2003) Switching and Inhibition 14 4 Sylvester et al. (2003) Inhibition > Switching 14 5 Tamm, Menon, and Reiss (2002) Go/NoGo - Go, Developing Controls 19 4 Townsend et al. (2012) NoGo minus Go, Healthy Controls 30 24 Ungar, Nestor, Niznikiewicz, Wible, and Kubicki (2010) Negative Priming: Incongruent Non-Primed vs. Primed, Healthy Controls 15 1 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop and Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop > Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Parametric Analysis 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Correct vs. Incorrect Stop 20 2 Watanabe et al. (2002) Areas Activated During NO-GO Phase 11 5 Watanabe et al. (2002) Specific Activation Areas During NO-GO Phase 11 4 Wood, Romero, Makale, and Grafman (2003) Social SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Social Semantic vs. Control 20 6 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial Semantic vs. Control 20 2 Zheng, Oka, Bokura, and Yamaguchi (2008) No-Go – Go (Go/No-Go) 18 8 Zheng et al. (2008) Stop – Go (Stop Signal) 18 10 De Zubicaray, Andrew, Zelaya, Williams, and Dumanoir (2000) Increases 8 15 De Zubicaray and colleagues (2000) Linear Increases With Number of Trials Equated Per Block 8 11 van Veen and Carter (2005) Semantically Incongruent > Congruent 14 6 van Veen and Carter (2005) Response-Incongruent > Semantically Incongruent 14 7 Publication Paradigm n Foci Altshuler et al. (2005) NoGo > Go, Normals 13 4 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop – Go 5 35 Aron and Poldrack (2006) Stop Inhibit – Stop Respond 5 13 Asahi, Okamoto, Okada, Yamawaki, and Yokota (2004) Response Inhibition 17 11 Baglio et al. (2011) NoGo vs. Fixation, Healthy Controls 11 5 Bellgrove, Hester, and Garavan (2004) Response Inhibition 42 19 Bennett et al. (2009) No/Go – Go, Non-Exposed, Correct Trials 11 8 Bonnet et al. (2009) Initial Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Initial Go/No-go 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Complex Go/No-go > Tonic Alertness 20 5 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Response Time 19 6 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Response Time 19 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Initial Go/No-go and Education Level 20 3 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Reversal Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Bonnet et al. (2009) Positive Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Tonic Alertness and Education Level 20 1 Bonnet et al. (2009) Negative Correlation between Activation During Complex Go/No-go and Education Level 20 2 Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, and Snyder (2001) Conjunction Analysis 14 9 Braver et al. (2001) Disjunction Analysis 14 19 Brown, Goltz, Vilis, Ford, and Everling (2006) Antisaccade Response > Fixation 10 20 Brown et al. (2006) Nogo Response > Fixation 10 19 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Prosaccade Response 10 15 Brown et al. (2006) Antisaccade Response > Nogo Response 10 16 Brown, Vilis, and Everling (2007) Response, Antisaccade – Preparation, Antisaccade 11 11 Chevrier and Schachar (2010) Post-Error Slowing Activations 14 16 Chevrier, Noseworthy, and Schachar (2007) Successful Stop-Phase Activities 14 3 Chevrier et al. (2007) Unsuccessful Stop-Phase Activities 14 10 Chikazoe, Konishi, Asari, Jimura, and Miyashita (2007) Antisaccade – Control Saccade 24 54 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Stop vs. Uncertain-Go 22 57 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 8 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Conjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go + Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 19 Chikazoe et al. (2009) Disjunction Analysis, Stop vs. Uncertain-Go but not Uncertain-Go vs. Certain-Go 22 16 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Frequent-Go 25 52 Chikazoe et al. (2009) No-Go vs. Infrequent-Go 25 52 Connolly et al. (2000) Anti-Saccade vs. Fixation 7 13 Connolly and colleagues (2000) Anti-Pointing vs. Fixation 7 20 Cross, Schmitt, and Grafton (2007) Activity during Movement Preparation (NoGo) 13 26 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Random Increasing (Early > Late) > Block Increasing (Early > Late) 13 4 Cross et al. (2007) Study Time: Block Increasing (Early > Late) > Random Increasing (Early > Late) 13 2 DeSouza, Menon, and Everling (2003) Selectively Activated for Saccades (Both Pro and Anti) 10 9 Duka (2011) A+ or B+ vs. C-– or D–, Reward vs. Non Reward 8 11 Duka (2011) (AB–) – (CD–), Incentive Conflict 8 6 Duka (2011) (A–) – (A+), Reversal 8 2 Duka (2011) (A+) – (A–), Reversal 8 1 Durston et al. (2003) Go > No Go, Healthy Controls 7 8 Durston (2006) Go > No-Go, Healthy Controls 11 2 Durston (2006) No-Go > Go, Healthy Controls 11 9 Durston (2006) Parametric effect of preceding number of Go Trials, Healthy Controls 11 3 Durston, Thomas, Worden, Yang, and Casey (2002) Go vs. No-Go 10 10 Ettinger et al. (2008) Standard Antisaccade 17 15 Ettinger et al. (2008) Saccade-by-Delay Interaction 17 15 Evers et al. (2006) NoGO Inhibition vs. Go, Experimental Session 13 17 Falconer (2008) No Go – Go, Normals 23 6 Fassbender et al. (2004) Tonic Activations for Fixed and Random SART 21 21 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Correct Inhibitions 21 8 Fassbender et al. (2004) Activations For Commission Errors 21 12 Finger, Mitchell, Jones, and Blair (2008) Successful Extinction > Successful Baseline (Control) 19 3 Finger et al. (2008) Correct Hits > Correct Avoidance 19 6 Finger et al. (2008) Early Extinction Phase > Late Extinction Phase 19 8 Finger et al. (2008) Extinction > Baseline (Control) 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response Type × Phase 19 2 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Pair 19 1 Finger et al. (2008) Response × Phase × Pair 19 1 Ford, Goltz, Brown, and Everling (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Anti vs. Pro 10 8 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Correct Anti vs. Error Anti 10 3 Ford et al. (2005) Late preparatory period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 2 Ford et al. (2005) Saccade period comparison: Error Anti vs. Correct Anti 10 1 Garavan et al. (2002) Successful NoGos 14 16 Garavan et al. (2002) Errors 14 15 Garavan et al. (1999) Response Inhibition 14 14 Garavan, Ross, Kaufman, and Stein (2003) Task-related Performance 16 12 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related STOPS 16 7 Garavan et al. (2003) Event-related ERRORS 16 5 Goldin, McRae, Ramel, and Gross (2008) Suppress > Watch, Negative 17 17 Goldin et al. (2008) Suppress > Reappraise 17 15 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Number Discrimination 10 12 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Number Discrimination 10 10 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Watch, Moral 10 7 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Moral > Decrease, Non-moral 10 13 Harenski (2006) Decrease, Non-moral > Decrease, Moral 10 1 Hester et al. (2004) Cued and Uncued Successful Response Inhibition 15 21 Hester et al. (2004) Cued vs. Uncued, Increases 15 10 Horn, Dolan, Elliott, Deakin, and Woodruff (2003) Go/No-Go > Go 21 14 Johnson-Frey, Newman-Norlund, and Grafton (2005) Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right 13 26 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left 13 13 Johnson-Frey et al. (2005) (Tool, No Go, Right > Move, No Go, Right) + (Tool, No Go, Left > Move, No Go, Left) 13 15 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T1 10 12 Kaladjian et al. (2009a) No Go vs. Go, Healthy Controls, T2 10 8 Kaladjian et al. (2009b) NoGo > Go, Correct Responses, Healthy Controls 20 16 Kaladjian et al. (2007) Correct NoGo Trials vs. Correct Go Trials, Healthy Controls 21 11 Kelly et al. (2004) Fast and Slow Successful Response Inhibitions 15 23 Kiehl, Liddle, and Hopfinger (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission 14 4 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Correct Rejects 14 8 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 1, Errors of Commission vs. Correct Rejects 14 2 Kiehl et al. (2000) Task 2, Correct Hits 14 12 Kimmig et al. (2001) Pro-Saccade and Anti-Saccade 15 12 Konishi et al. (1998) No-Go Dominant Foci 5 19 Konishi, Jimura, Asari, and Miyashita (2003) Inhibition – Control, No Additional Task Knowledge 36 16 Konishi et al. (2003) Inhibition – Control, Additional Task Knowledge 16 21 Konishi et al. (1999) No-Go Dominant Area 6 1 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Targets, Healthy Controls 17 10 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Correct Rejections, Healthy Controls 17 8 Langenecker et al. (2007) Activation in Response to Commissions, Healthy Controls 17 5 Li et al. (2008) Stop Errors > Stop Successes 40 12 Li et al. (2008) Post-Stop Successes Go > Post-Stop Errors Go 40 17 Li, Chao, and Lee (2009) Increased Reaction Time vs. Decreased Reaction Time, Go-Trial 33 20 Liddle, Kiehl, and Smith (2001) Correct NoGo – Baseline 16 19 Liddle et al. (2001) Correct NoGo – Go 16 23 MacDonald, Carter, Kerns, Ursu, and Barch (2005) Non-Target vs. Target, Normals 28 4 MacDonald et al. (2005) Long vs. Short Delay, Normals 28 1 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Main Effect of Scan, Normals 17 6 MacDonald and Carter (2003) Cue by Scan Interaction, Normals 17 1 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Fixation 6 10 Maguire et al. (2003) Go/No-Go vs. Go 6 6 Maltby, Tolin, Worhunsky, O’Keefe, and Kiehl (2005) Correct Inhibition, Normals 14 5 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades vs. Rest 21 17 Matsuda et al. (2004) Anti-Saccades > Saccades 21 12 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Oddball (Go/No-Go) 11 18 McNab et al. (2008) No-Go > Go 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Oddball (Stop Task) 11 25 McNab et al. (2008) Stop > Go 11 16 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks w/ Oddball 11 7 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks 11 6 McNab et al. (2008) Flanker Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Go/No-Go and both Memory Working Tasks 11 2 McNab et al. (2008) Stop Task and both Working Memory Tasks 11 12 Mechelli, Viding, Pettersson‐Yeo, Tognin, and McGuire (2009) Go/Nogo > Fixation 7 16 Mechelli et al. (2009) Nogo > Go 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go > Nogo 7 8 Mechelli et al. (2009) Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 7 1 Mechelli et al. (2009) Effect of twin pairs: Go/Nogo, CT and TT Variants > CC Variant 60 1 Menon, Adleman, White, Glover, and Reiss (2001) Incorrect NoGo – Correct NoGo 14 4 Menon et al. (2001) Go/NoGo – Go 14 13 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary No-Go Effects 48 3 Mostofsky et al. (2003) Primary Counting No-Go Effects 28 3 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Expected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Mulder et al. (2008) Expected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 4 Mulder et al. (2008) Unexpected Stimulus, Unexpected Time, Healthy Controls 12 6 Pavuluri, Passarotti, Harral, and Sweeney (2010) Stop vs. Go, Healthy Controls, Follow-Up > Baseline 13 6 Pessiglione, Seymour, Flandin, Dolan, and Frith (2006) Reward Prediction Error, Positive Correlations 39 2 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Punishment Prediction Error, Negative Correlations 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, Go/NoGo 39 7 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Gain) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pessiglione et al. (2006) Stimulus Related Activity, (Go/NoGo Loss) – (Go/NoGo Neutral) 39 1 Pompei et al. (2011) Main Effect of Group: Interference minus Neutral 14 6 Pompei et al. (2011) Interference minus Neutral, Healthy Controls 48 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Go/No-Go Activation 15 12 Rubia et al. (2001) Generic Stop Activation 15 6 Rubia et al. (2001) Activation Common to All Go/No-Go and Stop Task Versions 15 9 Rubia et al. (2001) Differences Between Generic Go/No-Go and Stop Task Activations 15 3 Rubia, Smith, Brammer, and Taylor (2003) NoGo, Successful Inhibition – NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition 20 2 Rubia et al. (2003) NoGo, Unsuccessful Inhibition – Go Response 20 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults 23 11 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adolescents 29 4 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Adults > Adolescents 23 1 Rubia et al. (2006) Go/NoGo Task, Positive Correlations with Age 23 3 Schiffer (2014) Conflict-related activity (Incongruent–Congruent) 21 11 Schiffer (2014) Error-related activity (All error trials–accurate Congruent trials) 21 8 Shane, Stevens, Harenski, and Kiehl (2008) Errors > Correct Responses, Performance Go and NoGo 21 13 Shane et al. (2008) Errors > Successful Inhibitions 21 8 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Responses 21 19 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors > Observed Correct Inhibitions 21 4 Shane et al. (2008) Observed Errors vs. Performed Errors 21 14 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations 30 10 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Negatively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 5 Simmonds et al. (2007) No-Go Activations Positively Correlated with Intraindividual Coefficient of Variability 30 3 Sylvester et al. (2003) Switching and Inhibition 14 4 Sylvester et al. (2003) Inhibition > Switching 14 5 Tamm, Menon, and Reiss (2002) Go/NoGo - Go, Developing Controls 19 4 Townsend et al. (2012) NoGo minus Go, Healthy Controls 30 24 Ungar, Nestor, Niznikiewicz, Wible, and Kubicki (2010) Negative Priming: Incongruent Non-Primed vs. Primed, Healthy Controls 15 1 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop and Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Go/Stop > Go Only 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Parametric Analysis 20 4 Vink et al. (2005) Correct vs. Incorrect Stop 20 2 Watanabe et al. (2002) Areas Activated During NO-GO Phase 11 5 Watanabe et al. (2002) Specific Activation Areas During NO-GO Phase 11 4 Wood, Romero, Makale, and Grafman (2003) Social SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial SEC vs. Control 20 3 Wood et al. (2003) Social Semantic vs. Control 20 6 Wood et al. (2003) Nonsocial Semantic vs. Control 20 2 Zheng, Oka, Bokura, and Yamaguchi (2008) No-Go – Go (Go/No-Go) 18 8 Zheng et al. (2008) Stop – Go (Stop Signal) 18 10 De Zubicaray, Andrew, Zelaya, Williams, and Dumanoir (2000) Increases 8 15 De Zubicaray and colleagues (2000) Linear Increases With Number of Trials Equated Per Block 8 11 van Veen and Carter (2005) Semantically Incongruent > Congruent 14 6 van Veen and Carter (2005) Response-Incongruent > Semantically Incongruent 14 7 Appendix C. General characteristics of the populations used in the different meta-analyses Publication Population Acuna et al. (2002) Fifteen participants (six women and nine men; one left-handed male, all others right-handed, 18–24 years) Altshuler et al. (2005) Thirteen control subjects (eight [62%] women) were included. The mean (±SD) age was 31 ± 6.7 years . Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2006) Twelve healthy right-handed volunteers (four men, eight women; mean age = 24; range = 20–37) Aziz‐Zadeh, Kaplan, and Iacoboni (2009) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six men, six women; median age, 26; range, 20–40), screened by questionnaire to have no history of brain damage. Handedness was assessed by a modified Oldfield questionnaire Castelli et al. (2000) Six right-handed male volunteers (aged 20–31, mean 24.5 years) Decety et al. (2004) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six females, six males) aged between 21 and 28 years Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Sixteen, right-handed, native English speaking, healthy young adults (mean age 24.8; age range 21–31; 8 male) Ebisch et al. (2012) Twenty-two female university students (age range: 20–24) participated in the present study and were selected from a large database of volunteers (N = 300) Feinstein et al. (2006) Sixteen right-handed healthy subjects (eight males and eight females) participated in the study [an average age of 35.4 years (SD = 5.82) and an average education of 15.1 years (SD = 1.57)]. Fairhall et al. (2014) Sixteen subjects participated in Experiment 1 (nine females, mean age 26.2 years). Seventeen subjects participated in Experiment 2 (eight females, mean age 26.9 years, three subjects participated in both experiments). All participants were right handed. Fletcher et al. (2001) Twelve right-handed (six female) with a mean age of 29 ± 8.8 years (±SD). Participants had a mean predicted IQ of 110 ± 5.8. Fukui et al. (2006) The mean age of the 16 male participants was 21.9 years (SD = 2.60). All subjects were right-handed, as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Goel et al. (2001) Fourteen right-handed normal subjects (six males and eight females), with a mean age of 28.57 years (SD = 4.6) and mean education level of 16.78 years (SD = 2.15) Grabner et al. (2009) Twenty-eight male adults (age between 22 and 33 years; M = 26.86, SD = 3.16) Grèzes et al. (2004) Eleven right-handed subjects (four men and six women, ranging 20–35 years of age) with no neurological or psychiatric history Hampshire et al. (2010) Fourteen right handed participants Hampshire et al. (2010) Sixteen right-handed volunteers between the ages of 20 and 40 undertook the fMRI task. No history of neurological or psychiatric illness. Hargreaves et al. (2012) The participants were 15 healthy adults, including 8 men (M = 26.63 years, SD = 7.05 years) and 7 women (M = 22.29 years, SD = 1.80 years). Herwig et al. (2011) Twenty subjects were scanned of which 18 subjects were included into the analysis. Jack et al. (2013) Forty-five student volunteers fluent English speakers; no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. mean age was 20.5 years (range 19–23 years), with 24 female participants. Jimura et al. (2004) Twenty-one healthy right-handed subjects (age range 20–26 years, five males, 16 females). Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Fourteen healthy subjects (9nine female, five male) determined to be right-handed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory with a mean score of 95.7% (range of 80–100) with a mean age of 25.1 years (range 18–47) and mean IQ of 121 (range 101–130) Konishi et al. (2002) Sixteen healthy right-handed subjects (10 males; six females, age, 19–35 years). Konishi, Nakajima, Uchida, Sekihara, and Miyashita (1998) Seven subjects. No other information Kounios et al. (2006) Experiment 1: 19 participants and experiment 2: 25 participants Kroger et al. (2008) Twelve participants no demographics are described Kroger et al. (2002) Eight subjects (right-handed college students; six male; aged 19–32 years) Lauro et al. (2008) A population of 101 subjects of different age (range 22–65), from different regions of Italy Lee and Dapretto (2006) Twelve normal adult volunteers (six males, six females, mean age 27.7 years, range 23–35) participated in this study. Luo et al. (2013) Volunteer college students; no demographics are described Luo and Niki (2003) Seven subjects; no demographics are described Mashal et al. (2007) Fifteen healthy volunteers (ages 21–31); eight males. Participants were college students Monchi et al. (2001) Eleven right-handed subjects (mean age, 24 years; range, 18–31 years; five males, six females) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorder participated in this study. Monchi et al. (2006) Ten right-handed healthy subjects (mean age, 23.4 years; range, 18 –31; five males, five females) participated in this study. Subjects had no previous personal or family history of neurological or psychiatric disorders and were not taking any prescribed medication at the time of scanning Nagahama et al. (2001) Ten right-handed male subjects (27.4 ± 8.1 years old, mean ± SD) took part in this study. Six of them participated in the fMRI experiment and the rest took part only in the behavioral study. Nakahara et al. (2002) Ten right-handed participants Newman et al. (2011) Fifteen individuals (mean age = 22, 18–31; six males), were included. All participants were right-handed, native English speakers Perfetti et al. (2009) Twenty subjects. The whole sample (six males) consisted of students aged between 19 and 30 years (males, M 5 22.3 and SD 63.1; females, M 5 21.3 and SD 62.3) They had a mean of 13.37 (SD 61.07) years of education Poldrack et al. (1999) Eight normal right-handed adults (age range 19–43 years) participated in the experiment. Prado and Noveck (2007) Twenty healthy native French-speaking volunteers (seven males and thirteen females, aged 19–26 years, mean: 21.4 years) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders participated in the study. All subjects were right-handed as measured by the Edinburg Handedness Inventory Preusse et al. (2011) Forty participants. Twenty-two participants constituted the hi-IQ group (IQ range 119–145, mean IQ 130, SD 8). Nineteen participants constituted the ave-IQ group (IQ range 91–110, mean IQ 104, SD 7). The groups did not differ in age (hi-IQ: mean age 17); 3 years (SD 0.5 months), ave-IQ: mean age 17;3 years (SD 0.5 months). The groups did not differ in years of education. All participants attended 11th grade Rao et al. (1997) Eleven normal volunteers (four males and seven females; ages 19–45 years, mean 29 years; mean education 16.5 years). All participants were strongly right-handed (mean laterality quotient 87.8 on the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory19). Rapp et al. (2004) Fifteen healthy, right handed [2] subjects (six female, nine male). Estimated mean verbal IQ was 123,1 (SD 15,1), participants were a mean of 15.3 (S.D. 3.06) years in fulltime education. Ross and Olson (2012) Eleven participants were included in the final analysis (7 females; mean age: 23). All participants were right handed native English speakers Schmidt and Seger (2009) Five male and five female, with a mean age of 25 years (range: 19–42). Participants were right handed by self-report, native speakers of English, had an education level equal to at least one year of college Sebastian et al. (2012) Thirty participants. Mean age was 14.18 years (SD = 1.88, range = 11.17–16.30) for the adolescent group and 28.88 years (SD = 4.54, range = 24.14–40.71) Sripada et al. (2009) Twenty-six healthy individuals. All participants were right-handed and free of current or past major medical or neurologic illness Stringaris et al. (2007) The participants were 12 right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native speakers of English. Mean age was 32.5 years (SD 8.6 years) and mean verbal IQ was 115 (SD 7) Stringaris et al. (2007) Eleven self-designated right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native English speakers. All provided written informed consent in accordance with procedures laid down by the local research ethics committee. Mean age was 33.3 years (SD 8 years) and mean verbal IQ was 116 (SD 6) Tian et al. (2011) Sixteen junior undergraduates (eight women, eight men) aged 19–25 years (mean age, 22.6 years) All subjects were healthy, right-handed, and had normal or corrected to normal vision. Uchiyama et al. (2006) Twenty right-handed healthy volunteers took part in the study: 10 females (mean age ± SD = 21.8 ± 3.0 years) and 10 males (mean age ± SD = 22.0 ± 2.4 years) with an overall mean age ± SD of 21.9 ± 2.7 years and an age range of 19–29 years. The mean number of years of education was 15.9 ± 2.7. van den Heuvel et al. (2005) Twenty-two healthy control subjects (mean age, 29.9 years [age range, 23–51 years]; 11 men and 11 women) performed the ToL while fMRI data were collected. Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Thirteen subjects. No other information provided Publication Population Acuna et al. (2002) Fifteen participants (six women and nine men; one left-handed male, all others right-handed, 18–24 years) Altshuler et al. (2005) Thirteen control subjects (eight [62%] women) were included. The mean (±SD) age was 31 ± 6.7 years . Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2006) Twelve healthy right-handed volunteers (four men, eight women; mean age = 24; range = 20–37) Aziz‐Zadeh, Kaplan, and Iacoboni (2009) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six men, six women; median age, 26; range, 20–40), screened by questionnaire to have no history of brain damage. Handedness was assessed by a modified Oldfield questionnaire Castelli et al. (2000) Six right-handed male volunteers (aged 20–31, mean 24.5 years) Decety et al. (2004) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six females, six males) aged between 21 and 28 years Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Sixteen, right-handed, native English speaking, healthy young adults (mean age 24.8; age range 21–31; 8 male) Ebisch et al. (2012) Twenty-two female university students (age range: 20–24) participated in the present study and were selected from a large database of volunteers (N = 300) Feinstein et al. (2006) Sixteen right-handed healthy subjects (eight males and eight females) participated in the study [an average age of 35.4 years (SD = 5.82) and an average education of 15.1 years (SD = 1.57)]. Fairhall et al. (2014) Sixteen subjects participated in Experiment 1 (nine females, mean age 26.2 years). Seventeen subjects participated in Experiment 2 (eight females, mean age 26.9 years, three subjects participated in both experiments). All participants were right handed. Fletcher et al. (2001) Twelve right-handed (six female) with a mean age of 29 ± 8.8 years (±SD). Participants had a mean predicted IQ of 110 ± 5.8. Fukui et al. (2006) The mean age of the 16 male participants was 21.9 years (SD = 2.60). All subjects were right-handed, as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Goel et al. (2001) Fourteen right-handed normal subjects (six males and eight females), with a mean age of 28.57 years (SD = 4.6) and mean education level of 16.78 years (SD = 2.15) Grabner et al. (2009) Twenty-eight male adults (age between 22 and 33 years; M = 26.86, SD = 3.16) Grèzes et al. (2004) Eleven right-handed subjects (four men and six women, ranging 20–35 years of age) with no neurological or psychiatric history Hampshire et al. (2010) Fourteen right handed participants Hampshire et al. (2010) Sixteen right-handed volunteers between the ages of 20 and 40 undertook the fMRI task. No history of neurological or psychiatric illness. Hargreaves et al. (2012) The participants were 15 healthy adults, including 8 men (M = 26.63 years, SD = 7.05 years) and 7 women (M = 22.29 years, SD = 1.80 years). Herwig et al. (2011) Twenty subjects were scanned of which 18 subjects were included into the analysis. Jack et al. (2013) Forty-five student volunteers fluent English speakers; no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. mean age was 20.5 years (range 19–23 years), with 24 female participants. Jimura et al. (2004) Twenty-one healthy right-handed subjects (age range 20–26 years, five males, 16 females). Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Fourteen healthy subjects (9nine female, five male) determined to be right-handed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory with a mean score of 95.7% (range of 80–100) with a mean age of 25.1 years (range 18–47) and mean IQ of 121 (range 101–130) Konishi et al. (2002) Sixteen healthy right-handed subjects (10 males; six females, age, 19–35 years). Konishi, Nakajima, Uchida, Sekihara, and Miyashita (1998) Seven subjects. No other information Kounios et al. (2006) Experiment 1: 19 participants and experiment 2: 25 participants Kroger et al. (2008) Twelve participants no demographics are described Kroger et al. (2002) Eight subjects (right-handed college students; six male; aged 19–32 years) Lauro et al. (2008) A population of 101 subjects of different age (range 22–65), from different regions of Italy Lee and Dapretto (2006) Twelve normal adult volunteers (six males, six females, mean age 27.7 years, range 23–35) participated in this study. Luo et al. (2013) Volunteer college students; no demographics are described Luo and Niki (2003) Seven subjects; no demographics are described Mashal et al. (2007) Fifteen healthy volunteers (ages 21–31); eight males. Participants were college students Monchi et al. (2001) Eleven right-handed subjects (mean age, 24 years; range, 18–31 years; five males, six females) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorder participated in this study. Monchi et al. (2006) Ten right-handed healthy subjects (mean age, 23.4 years; range, 18 –31; five males, five females) participated in this study. Subjects had no previous personal or family history of neurological or psychiatric disorders and were not taking any prescribed medication at the time of scanning Nagahama et al. (2001) Ten right-handed male subjects (27.4 ± 8.1 years old, mean ± SD) took part in this study. Six of them participated in the fMRI experiment and the rest took part only in the behavioral study. Nakahara et al. (2002) Ten right-handed participants Newman et al. (2011) Fifteen individuals (mean age = 22, 18–31; six males), were included. All participants were right-handed, native English speakers Perfetti et al. (2009) Twenty subjects. The whole sample (six males) consisted of students aged between 19 and 30 years (males, M 5 22.3 and SD 63.1; females, M 5 21.3 and SD 62.3) They had a mean of 13.37 (SD 61.07) years of education Poldrack et al. (1999) Eight normal right-handed adults (age range 19–43 years) participated in the experiment. Prado and Noveck (2007) Twenty healthy native French-speaking volunteers (seven males and thirteen females, aged 19–26 years, mean: 21.4 years) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders participated in the study. All subjects were right-handed as measured by the Edinburg Handedness Inventory Preusse et al. (2011) Forty participants. Twenty-two participants constituted the hi-IQ group (IQ range 119–145, mean IQ 130, SD 8). Nineteen participants constituted the ave-IQ group (IQ range 91–110, mean IQ 104, SD 7). The groups did not differ in age (hi-IQ: mean age 17); 3 years (SD 0.5 months), ave-IQ: mean age 17;3 years (SD 0.5 months). The groups did not differ in years of education. All participants attended 11th grade Rao et al. (1997) Eleven normal volunteers (four males and seven females; ages 19–45 years, mean 29 years; mean education 16.5 years). All participants were strongly right-handed (mean laterality quotient 87.8 on the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory19). Rapp et al. (2004) Fifteen healthy, right handed [2] subjects (six female, nine male). Estimated mean verbal IQ was 123,1 (SD 15,1), participants were a mean of 15.3 (S.D. 3.06) years in fulltime education. Ross and Olson (2012) Eleven participants were included in the final analysis (7 females; mean age: 23). All participants were right handed native English speakers Schmidt and Seger (2009) Five male and five female, with a mean age of 25 years (range: 19–42). Participants were right handed by self-report, native speakers of English, had an education level equal to at least one year of college Sebastian et al. (2012) Thirty participants. Mean age was 14.18 years (SD = 1.88, range = 11.17–16.30) for the adolescent group and 28.88 years (SD = 4.54, range = 24.14–40.71) Sripada et al. (2009) Twenty-six healthy individuals. All participants were right-handed and free of current or past major medical or neurologic illness Stringaris et al. (2007) The participants were 12 right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native speakers of English. Mean age was 32.5 years (SD 8.6 years) and mean verbal IQ was 115 (SD 7) Stringaris et al. (2007) Eleven self-designated right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native English speakers. All provided written informed consent in accordance with procedures laid down by the local research ethics committee. Mean age was 33.3 years (SD 8 years) and mean verbal IQ was 116 (SD 6) Tian et al. (2011) Sixteen junior undergraduates (eight women, eight men) aged 19–25 years (mean age, 22.6 years) All subjects were healthy, right-handed, and had normal or corrected to normal vision. Uchiyama et al. (2006) Twenty right-handed healthy volunteers took part in the study: 10 females (mean age ± SD = 21.8 ± 3.0 years) and 10 males (mean age ± SD = 22.0 ± 2.4 years) with an overall mean age ± SD of 21.9 ± 2.7 years and an age range of 19–29 years. The mean number of years of education was 15.9 ± 2.7. van den Heuvel et al. (2005) Twenty-two healthy control subjects (mean age, 29.9 years [age range, 23–51 years]; 11 men and 11 women) performed the ToL while fMRI data were collected. Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Thirteen subjects. No other information provided Appendix C. General characteristics of the populations used in the different meta-analyses Publication Population Acuna et al. (2002) Fifteen participants (six women and nine men; one left-handed male, all others right-handed, 18–24 years) Altshuler et al. (2005) Thirteen control subjects (eight [62%] women) were included. The mean (±SD) age was 31 ± 6.7 years . Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2006) Twelve healthy right-handed volunteers (four men, eight women; mean age = 24; range = 20–37) Aziz‐Zadeh, Kaplan, and Iacoboni (2009) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six men, six women; median age, 26; range, 20–40), screened by questionnaire to have no history of brain damage. Handedness was assessed by a modified Oldfield questionnaire Castelli et al. (2000) Six right-handed male volunteers (aged 20–31, mean 24.5 years) Decety et al. (2004) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six females, six males) aged between 21 and 28 years Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Sixteen, right-handed, native English speaking, healthy young adults (mean age 24.8; age range 21–31; 8 male) Ebisch et al. (2012) Twenty-two female university students (age range: 20–24) participated in the present study and were selected from a large database of volunteers (N = 300) Feinstein et al. (2006) Sixteen right-handed healthy subjects (eight males and eight females) participated in the study [an average age of 35.4 years (SD = 5.82) and an average education of 15.1 years (SD = 1.57)]. Fairhall et al. (2014) Sixteen subjects participated in Experiment 1 (nine females, mean age 26.2 years). Seventeen subjects participated in Experiment 2 (eight females, mean age 26.9 years, three subjects participated in both experiments). All participants were right handed. Fletcher et al. (2001) Twelve right-handed (six female) with a mean age of 29 ± 8.8 years (±SD). Participants had a mean predicted IQ of 110 ± 5.8. Fukui et al. (2006) The mean age of the 16 male participants was 21.9 years (SD = 2.60). All subjects were right-handed, as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Goel et al. (2001) Fourteen right-handed normal subjects (six males and eight females), with a mean age of 28.57 years (SD = 4.6) and mean education level of 16.78 years (SD = 2.15) Grabner et al. (2009) Twenty-eight male adults (age between 22 and 33 years; M = 26.86, SD = 3.16) Grèzes et al. (2004) Eleven right-handed subjects (four men and six women, ranging 20–35 years of age) with no neurological or psychiatric history Hampshire et al. (2010) Fourteen right handed participants Hampshire et al. (2010) Sixteen right-handed volunteers between the ages of 20 and 40 undertook the fMRI task. No history of neurological or psychiatric illness. Hargreaves et al. (2012) The participants were 15 healthy adults, including 8 men (M = 26.63 years, SD = 7.05 years) and 7 women (M = 22.29 years, SD = 1.80 years). Herwig et al. (2011) Twenty subjects were scanned of which 18 subjects were included into the analysis. Jack et al. (2013) Forty-five student volunteers fluent English speakers; no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. mean age was 20.5 years (range 19–23 years), with 24 female participants. Jimura et al. (2004) Twenty-one healthy right-handed subjects (age range 20–26 years, five males, 16 females). Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Fourteen healthy subjects (9nine female, five male) determined to be right-handed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory with a mean score of 95.7% (range of 80–100) with a mean age of 25.1 years (range 18–47) and mean IQ of 121 (range 101–130) Konishi et al. (2002) Sixteen healthy right-handed subjects (10 males; six females, age, 19–35 years). Konishi, Nakajima, Uchida, Sekihara, and Miyashita (1998) Seven subjects. No other information Kounios et al. (2006) Experiment 1: 19 participants and experiment 2: 25 participants Kroger et al. (2008) Twelve participants no demographics are described Kroger et al. (2002) Eight subjects (right-handed college students; six male; aged 19–32 years) Lauro et al. (2008) A population of 101 subjects of different age (range 22–65), from different regions of Italy Lee and Dapretto (2006) Twelve normal adult volunteers (six males, six females, mean age 27.7 years, range 23–35) participated in this study. Luo et al. (2013) Volunteer college students; no demographics are described Luo and Niki (2003) Seven subjects; no demographics are described Mashal et al. (2007) Fifteen healthy volunteers (ages 21–31); eight males. Participants were college students Monchi et al. (2001) Eleven right-handed subjects (mean age, 24 years; range, 18–31 years; five males, six females) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorder participated in this study. Monchi et al. (2006) Ten right-handed healthy subjects (mean age, 23.4 years; range, 18 –31; five males, five females) participated in this study. Subjects had no previous personal or family history of neurological or psychiatric disorders and were not taking any prescribed medication at the time of scanning Nagahama et al. (2001) Ten right-handed male subjects (27.4 ± 8.1 years old, mean ± SD) took part in this study. Six of them participated in the fMRI experiment and the rest took part only in the behavioral study. Nakahara et al. (2002) Ten right-handed participants Newman et al. (2011) Fifteen individuals (mean age = 22, 18–31; six males), were included. All participants were right-handed, native English speakers Perfetti et al. (2009) Twenty subjects. The whole sample (six males) consisted of students aged between 19 and 30 years (males, M 5 22.3 and SD 63.1; females, M 5 21.3 and SD 62.3) They had a mean of 13.37 (SD 61.07) years of education Poldrack et al. (1999) Eight normal right-handed adults (age range 19–43 years) participated in the experiment. Prado and Noveck (2007) Twenty healthy native French-speaking volunteers (seven males and thirteen females, aged 19–26 years, mean: 21.4 years) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders participated in the study. All subjects were right-handed as measured by the Edinburg Handedness Inventory Preusse et al. (2011) Forty participants. Twenty-two participants constituted the hi-IQ group (IQ range 119–145, mean IQ 130, SD 8). Nineteen participants constituted the ave-IQ group (IQ range 91–110, mean IQ 104, SD 7). The groups did not differ in age (hi-IQ: mean age 17); 3 years (SD 0.5 months), ave-IQ: mean age 17;3 years (SD 0.5 months). The groups did not differ in years of education. All participants attended 11th grade Rao et al. (1997) Eleven normal volunteers (four males and seven females; ages 19–45 years, mean 29 years; mean education 16.5 years). All participants were strongly right-handed (mean laterality quotient 87.8 on the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory19). Rapp et al. (2004) Fifteen healthy, right handed [2] subjects (six female, nine male). Estimated mean verbal IQ was 123,1 (SD 15,1), participants were a mean of 15.3 (S.D. 3.06) years in fulltime education. Ross and Olson (2012) Eleven participants were included in the final analysis (7 females; mean age: 23). All participants were right handed native English speakers Schmidt and Seger (2009) Five male and five female, with a mean age of 25 years (range: 19–42). Participants were right handed by self-report, native speakers of English, had an education level equal to at least one year of college Sebastian et al. (2012) Thirty participants. Mean age was 14.18 years (SD = 1.88, range = 11.17–16.30) for the adolescent group and 28.88 years (SD = 4.54, range = 24.14–40.71) Sripada et al. (2009) Twenty-six healthy individuals. All participants were right-handed and free of current or past major medical or neurologic illness Stringaris et al. (2007) The participants were 12 right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native speakers of English. Mean age was 32.5 years (SD 8.6 years) and mean verbal IQ was 115 (SD 7) Stringaris et al. (2007) Eleven self-designated right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native English speakers. All provided written informed consent in accordance with procedures laid down by the local research ethics committee. Mean age was 33.3 years (SD 8 years) and mean verbal IQ was 116 (SD 6) Tian et al. (2011) Sixteen junior undergraduates (eight women, eight men) aged 19–25 years (mean age, 22.6 years) All subjects were healthy, right-handed, and had normal or corrected to normal vision. Uchiyama et al. (2006) Twenty right-handed healthy volunteers took part in the study: 10 females (mean age ± SD = 21.8 ± 3.0 years) and 10 males (mean age ± SD = 22.0 ± 2.4 years) with an overall mean age ± SD of 21.9 ± 2.7 years and an age range of 19–29 years. The mean number of years of education was 15.9 ± 2.7. van den Heuvel et al. (2005) Twenty-two healthy control subjects (mean age, 29.9 years [age range, 23–51 years]; 11 men and 11 women) performed the ToL while fMRI data were collected. Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Thirteen subjects. No other information provided Publication Population Acuna et al. (2002) Fifteen participants (six women and nine men; one left-handed male, all others right-handed, 18–24 years) Altshuler et al. (2005) Thirteen control subjects (eight [62%] women) were included. The mean (±SD) age was 31 ± 6.7 years . Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2006) Twelve healthy right-handed volunteers (four men, eight women; mean age = 24; range = 20–37) Aziz‐Zadeh, Kaplan, and Iacoboni (2009) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six men, six women; median age, 26; range, 20–40), screened by questionnaire to have no history of brain damage. Handedness was assessed by a modified Oldfield questionnaire Castelli et al. (2000) Six right-handed male volunteers (aged 20–31, mean 24.5 years) Decety et al. (2004) Twelve right-handed healthy volunteers (six females, six males) aged between 21 and 28 years Diaz and Hogstrom (2011) Sixteen, right-handed, native English speaking, healthy young adults (mean age 24.8; age range 21–31; 8 male) Ebisch et al. (2012) Twenty-two female university students (age range: 20–24) participated in the present study and were selected from a large database of volunteers (N = 300) Feinstein et al. (2006) Sixteen right-handed healthy subjects (eight males and eight females) participated in the study [an average age of 35.4 years (SD = 5.82) and an average education of 15.1 years (SD = 1.57)]. Fairhall et al. (2014) Sixteen subjects participated in Experiment 1 (nine females, mean age 26.2 years). Seventeen subjects participated in Experiment 2 (eight females, mean age 26.9 years, three subjects participated in both experiments). All participants were right handed. Fletcher et al. (2001) Twelve right-handed (six female) with a mean age of 29 ± 8.8 years (±SD). Participants had a mean predicted IQ of 110 ± 5.8. Fukui et al. (2006) The mean age of the 16 male participants was 21.9 years (SD = 2.60). All subjects were right-handed, as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Goel et al. (2001) Fourteen right-handed normal subjects (six males and eight females), with a mean age of 28.57 years (SD = 4.6) and mean education level of 16.78 years (SD = 2.15) Grabner et al. (2009) Twenty-eight male adults (age between 22 and 33 years; M = 26.86, SD = 3.16) Grèzes et al. (2004) Eleven right-handed subjects (four men and six women, ranging 20–35 years of age) with no neurological or psychiatric history Hampshire et al. (2010) Fourteen right handed participants Hampshire et al. (2010) Sixteen right-handed volunteers between the ages of 20 and 40 undertook the fMRI task. No history of neurological or psychiatric illness. Hargreaves et al. (2012) The participants were 15 healthy adults, including 8 men (M = 26.63 years, SD = 7.05 years) and 7 women (M = 22.29 years, SD = 1.80 years). Herwig et al. (2011) Twenty subjects were scanned of which 18 subjects were included into the analysis. Jack et al. (2013) Forty-five student volunteers fluent English speakers; no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. mean age was 20.5 years (range 19–23 years), with 24 female participants. Jimura et al. (2004) Twenty-one healthy right-handed subjects (age range 20–26 years, five males, 16 females). Kalbfleisch et al. (2007) Fourteen healthy subjects (9nine female, five male) determined to be right-handed by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory with a mean score of 95.7% (range of 80–100) with a mean age of 25.1 years (range 18–47) and mean IQ of 121 (range 101–130) Konishi et al. (2002) Sixteen healthy right-handed subjects (10 males; six females, age, 19–35 years). Konishi, Nakajima, Uchida, Sekihara, and Miyashita (1998) Seven subjects. No other information Kounios et al. (2006) Experiment 1: 19 participants and experiment 2: 25 participants Kroger et al. (2008) Twelve participants no demographics are described Kroger et al. (2002) Eight subjects (right-handed college students; six male; aged 19–32 years) Lauro et al. (2008) A population of 101 subjects of different age (range 22–65), from different regions of Italy Lee and Dapretto (2006) Twelve normal adult volunteers (six males, six females, mean age 27.7 years, range 23–35) participated in this study. Luo et al. (2013) Volunteer college students; no demographics are described Luo and Niki (2003) Seven subjects; no demographics are described Mashal et al. (2007) Fifteen healthy volunteers (ages 21–31); eight males. Participants were college students Monchi et al. (2001) Eleven right-handed subjects (mean age, 24 years; range, 18–31 years; five males, six females) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorder participated in this study. Monchi et al. (2006) Ten right-handed healthy subjects (mean age, 23.4 years; range, 18 –31; five males, five females) participated in this study. Subjects had no previous personal or family history of neurological or psychiatric disorders and were not taking any prescribed medication at the time of scanning Nagahama et al. (2001) Ten right-handed male subjects (27.4 ± 8.1 years old, mean ± SD) took part in this study. Six of them participated in the fMRI experiment and the rest took part only in the behavioral study. Nakahara et al. (2002) Ten right-handed participants Newman et al. (2011) Fifteen individuals (mean age = 22, 18–31; six males), were included. All participants were right-handed, native English speakers Perfetti et al. (2009) Twenty subjects. The whole sample (six males) consisted of students aged between 19 and 30 years (males, M 5 22.3 and SD 63.1; females, M 5 21.3 and SD 62.3) They had a mean of 13.37 (SD 61.07) years of education Poldrack et al. (1999) Eight normal right-handed adults (age range 19–43 years) participated in the experiment. Prado and Noveck (2007) Twenty healthy native French-speaking volunteers (seven males and thirteen females, aged 19–26 years, mean: 21.4 years) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders participated in the study. All subjects were right-handed as measured by the Edinburg Handedness Inventory Preusse et al. (2011) Forty participants. Twenty-two participants constituted the hi-IQ group (IQ range 119–145, mean IQ 130, SD 8). Nineteen participants constituted the ave-IQ group (IQ range 91–110, mean IQ 104, SD 7). The groups did not differ in age (hi-IQ: mean age 17); 3 years (SD 0.5 months), ave-IQ: mean age 17;3 years (SD 0.5 months). The groups did not differ in years of education. All participants attended 11th grade Rao et al. (1997) Eleven normal volunteers (four males and seven females; ages 19–45 years, mean 29 years; mean education 16.5 years). All participants were strongly right-handed (mean laterality quotient 87.8 on the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory19). Rapp et al. (2004) Fifteen healthy, right handed [2] subjects (six female, nine male). Estimated mean verbal IQ was 123,1 (SD 15,1), participants were a mean of 15.3 (S.D. 3.06) years in fulltime education. Ross and Olson (2012) Eleven participants were included in the final analysis (7 females; mean age: 23). All participants were right handed native English speakers Schmidt and Seger (2009) Five male and five female, with a mean age of 25 years (range: 19–42). Participants were right handed by self-report, native speakers of English, had an education level equal to at least one year of college Sebastian et al. (2012) Thirty participants. Mean age was 14.18 years (SD = 1.88, range = 11.17–16.30) for the adolescent group and 28.88 years (SD = 4.54, range = 24.14–40.71) Sripada et al. (2009) Twenty-six healthy individuals. All participants were right-handed and free of current or past major medical or neurologic illness Stringaris et al. (2007) The participants were 12 right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native speakers of English. Mean age was 32.5 years (SD 8.6 years) and mean verbal IQ was 115 (SD 7) Stringaris et al. (2007) Eleven self-designated right-handed male volunteers with no history of psychiatric or neurological illnesses who were native English speakers. All provided written informed consent in accordance with procedures laid down by the local research ethics committee. Mean age was 33.3 years (SD 8 years) and mean verbal IQ was 116 (SD 6) Tian et al. (2011) Sixteen junior undergraduates (eight women, eight men) aged 19–25 years (mean age, 22.6 years) All subjects were healthy, right-handed, and had normal or corrected to normal vision. Uchiyama et al. (2006) Twenty right-handed healthy volunteers took part in the study: 10 females (mean age ± SD = 21.8 ± 3.0 years) and 10 males (mean age ± SD = 22.0 ± 2.4 years) with an overall mean age ± SD of 21.9 ± 2.7 years and an age range of 19–29 years. The mean number of years of education was 15.9 ± 2.7. van den Heuvel et al. (2005) Twenty-two healthy control subjects (mean age, 29.9 years [age range, 23–51 years]; 11 men and 11 women) performed the ToL while fMRI data were collected. Yoshida and Ishii (2006) Thirteen subjects. No other information provided Appendix D. Brodmann areas Areas 3, 1 & 2 – Primary Somatosensory Cortex Area 4 – Primary Motor Cortex Area 5 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 6 – Premotor cortex - Supplementary Motor Area Area 7 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 8 – Premotor - Frontal eye field Area 9 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 10 – Anterior prefrontal cortex Area 11 – Orbitofrontal area Area 12 – Orbitofrontal area Area 13 and Area 14 – Insular cortex Area 15 – Anterior Temporal lobe Area 16 – Insular cortex Area 17 – Primary visual cortex Area 18 – Secondary visual cortex Area 19 – Associative visual cortex Area 20 – Inferior temporal gyrus Area 21 – Middle temporal gyrus Area 22 – Superior temporal gyrus; Wernicke’s area Area 23 – Ventral posterior cingulate cortex Area 24 – Ventral anterior cingulate cortex. Area 25 – Subgenual area Area 26 – Ectosplenial portion of the retrosplenial region Area 27 – Piriform cortex Area 28 – Ventral entorhinal cortex Area 29 – Retrosplenial cingulate cortex Area 30 – Part of cingulate cortex Area 31 – Dorsal Posterior cingulate cortex Area 32 – Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex Area 33 – Part of anterior cingulate cortex Area 34 – Dorsal entorhinal cortex (on the Parahippocampal gyrus) Area 35 – Perirhinal cortex Area 36 – Ectorhinal area Area 37 – Fusiform gyrus Area 38 – Temporopolar area (most rostral part of the superior and middle temporal gyri) Area 39 – Angular gyrus, considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Area 40 – Supramarginal gyrus considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Areas 41 and 42 – Auditory cortex Area 43 – Primary gustatory cortex Area 44 – Pars opercularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 45 – Pars triangularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 46 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 47 – Pars orbitalis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus Area 48 – Retrosubicular area (a small part of the medial surface of the temporal lobe) Area 49 – Parasubicular area in a rodent Area 52 – Parainsular area (at the junction of the temporal lobe and the insula) Areas 3, 1 & 2 – Primary Somatosensory Cortex Area 4 – Primary Motor Cortex Area 5 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 6 – Premotor cortex - Supplementary Motor Area Area 7 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 8 – Premotor - Frontal eye field Area 9 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 10 – Anterior prefrontal cortex Area 11 – Orbitofrontal area Area 12 – Orbitofrontal area Area 13 and Area 14 – Insular cortex Area 15 – Anterior Temporal lobe Area 16 – Insular cortex Area 17 – Primary visual cortex Area 18 – Secondary visual cortex Area 19 – Associative visual cortex Area 20 – Inferior temporal gyrus Area 21 – Middle temporal gyrus Area 22 – Superior temporal gyrus; Wernicke’s area Area 23 – Ventral posterior cingulate cortex Area 24 – Ventral anterior cingulate cortex. Area 25 – Subgenual area Area 26 – Ectosplenial portion of the retrosplenial region Area 27 – Piriform cortex Area 28 – Ventral entorhinal cortex Area 29 – Retrosplenial cingulate cortex Area 30 – Part of cingulate cortex Area 31 – Dorsal Posterior cingulate cortex Area 32 – Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex Area 33 – Part of anterior cingulate cortex Area 34 – Dorsal entorhinal cortex (on the Parahippocampal gyrus) Area 35 – Perirhinal cortex Area 36 – Ectorhinal area Area 37 – Fusiform gyrus Area 38 – Temporopolar area (most rostral part of the superior and middle temporal gyri) Area 39 – Angular gyrus, considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Area 40 – Supramarginal gyrus considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Areas 41 and 42 – Auditory cortex Area 43 – Primary gustatory cortex Area 44 – Pars opercularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 45 – Pars triangularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 46 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 47 – Pars orbitalis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus Area 48 – Retrosubicular area (a small part of the medial surface of the temporal lobe) Area 49 – Parasubicular area in a rodent Area 52 – Parainsular area (at the junction of the temporal lobe and the insula) Appendix D. Brodmann areas Areas 3, 1 & 2 – Primary Somatosensory Cortex Area 4 – Primary Motor Cortex Area 5 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 6 – Premotor cortex - Supplementary Motor Area Area 7 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 8 – Premotor - Frontal eye field Area 9 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 10 – Anterior prefrontal cortex Area 11 – Orbitofrontal area Area 12 – Orbitofrontal area Area 13 and Area 14 – Insular cortex Area 15 – Anterior Temporal lobe Area 16 – Insular cortex Area 17 – Primary visual cortex Area 18 – Secondary visual cortex Area 19 – Associative visual cortex Area 20 – Inferior temporal gyrus Area 21 – Middle temporal gyrus Area 22 – Superior temporal gyrus; Wernicke’s area Area 23 – Ventral posterior cingulate cortex Area 24 – Ventral anterior cingulate cortex. Area 25 – Subgenual area Area 26 – Ectosplenial portion of the retrosplenial region Area 27 – Piriform cortex Area 28 – Ventral entorhinal cortex Area 29 – Retrosplenial cingulate cortex Area 30 – Part of cingulate cortex Area 31 – Dorsal Posterior cingulate cortex Area 32 – Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex Area 33 – Part of anterior cingulate cortex Area 34 – Dorsal entorhinal cortex (on the Parahippocampal gyrus) Area 35 – Perirhinal cortex Area 36 – Ectorhinal area Area 37 – Fusiform gyrus Area 38 – Temporopolar area (most rostral part of the superior and middle temporal gyri) Area 39 – Angular gyrus, considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Area 40 – Supramarginal gyrus considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Areas 41 and 42 – Auditory cortex Area 43 – Primary gustatory cortex Area 44 – Pars opercularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 45 – Pars triangularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 46 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 47 – Pars orbitalis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus Area 48 – Retrosubicular area (a small part of the medial surface of the temporal lobe) Area 49 – Parasubicular area in a rodent Area 52 – Parainsular area (at the junction of the temporal lobe and the insula) Areas 3, 1 & 2 – Primary Somatosensory Cortex Area 4 – Primary Motor Cortex Area 5 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 6 – Premotor cortex - Supplementary Motor Area Area 7 – Superior Parietal Lobe Area 8 – Premotor - Frontal eye field Area 9 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 10 – Anterior prefrontal cortex Area 11 – Orbitofrontal area Area 12 – Orbitofrontal area Area 13 and Area 14 – Insular cortex Area 15 – Anterior Temporal lobe Area 16 – Insular cortex Area 17 – Primary visual cortex Area 18 – Secondary visual cortex Area 19 – Associative visual cortex Area 20 – Inferior temporal gyrus Area 21 – Middle temporal gyrus Area 22 – Superior temporal gyrus; Wernicke’s area Area 23 – Ventral posterior cingulate cortex Area 24 – Ventral anterior cingulate cortex. Area 25 – Subgenual area Area 26 – Ectosplenial portion of the retrosplenial region Area 27 – Piriform cortex Area 28 – Ventral entorhinal cortex Area 29 – Retrosplenial cingulate cortex Area 30 – Part of cingulate cortex Area 31 – Dorsal Posterior cingulate cortex Area 32 – Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex Area 33 – Part of anterior cingulate cortex Area 34 – Dorsal entorhinal cortex (on the Parahippocampal gyrus) Area 35 – Perirhinal cortex Area 36 – Ectorhinal area Area 37 – Fusiform gyrus Area 38 – Temporopolar area (most rostral part of the superior and middle temporal gyri) Area 39 – Angular gyrus, considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Area 40 – Supramarginal gyrus considered by some to be part of Wernicke’s area Areas 41 and 42 – Auditory cortex Area 43 – Primary gustatory cortex Area 44 – Pars opercularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 45 – Pars triangularis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus and part of Broca’s area Area 46 – Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex Area 47 – Pars orbitalis, part of the inferior frontal gyrus Area 48 – Retrosubicular area (a small part of the medial surface of the temporal lobe) Area 49 – Parasubicular area in a rodent Area 52 – Parainsular area (at the junction of the temporal lobe and the insula) References *Acuna , B. D. , Eliassen , J. C. , Donoghue , J. P. , & Sanes , J. N. ( 2002 ). Frontal and parietal lobe activation during transitive inference in humans . Cerebral Cortex , 12 , 1312 – 1321 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Alexander , G. E. , DeLong , M. R. , & Strick , P. L. ( 1986 ). Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex . Annual Review of Neuroscience , 9 , 357 – 381 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Altshuler , L. L. , Bookheimer , S. Y. , Townsend , J. , Proenza , M. A. , Eisenberger , N. , Sabb , F. , et al. . ( 2005 ). Blunted activation in orbitofrontal cortex during mania: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study . Biological Psychiatry , 58 , 763 – 769 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Anderson , V. ( 2001 ). Assessing executive functions in children: Biological, psychological, and developmental considerations . Developmental Neurorehabilitation , 4 , 119 – 136 . Andrés , P. ( 2003 ). Frontal cortex as the central executive of working memory: Time to revise our view . Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior , 39 , 871 – 895 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Andrés , P. , & Van der Linden , M. ( 2002 ). Are central executive functions working in patients with focal frontal lesions? Neuropsychologia , 40 , 835 – 845 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ardila , A. ( 2008 ). On the evolutionary origins of executive functions . Brain and Cognition , 68 , 92 – 99 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ardila , A. ( 2013 ). There are two different dysexecutive syndromes . Journal of Neurological Disorders , 1 ( 14 ), 1 – 4 . Aron , A. R. , Robbins , T. W. , & Poldrack , R. A. ( 2004 ). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 8 , 170 – 177 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Aron , A. R. , & Poldrack , R. A. ( 2006 ). Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus . The Journal of Neuroscience , 26 , 2424 – 2433 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Asahi , S. , Okamoto , Y. , Okada , G. , Yamawaki , S. , & Yokota , N. ( 2004 ). Negative correlation between right prefrontal activity during response inhibition and impulsiveness: A fMRI study . European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience , 254 , 245 – 251 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Aziz‐Zadeh , L. , Kaplan , J. T. , & Iacoboni , M. ( 2009 ). “Aha!”: The neural correlates of verbal insight solutions . Human Brain Mapping , 30 , 908 – 916 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Aziz-Zadeh , L. , Wilson , S. M. , Rizzolatti , G. , & Iacoboni , M. ( 2006 ). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions . Current Biology , 16 , 1818 – 1823 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Baddeley , A. ( 1986 ). Working memory . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Babcock , L. , & Vallesi , A. ( 2015 ). The interaction of process and domain in prefrontal cortex during inductive reasoning . Neuropsychologia , 67 , 91 – 99 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Baglio , F. , Blasi , V. , Falini , A. , Farina , E. , Mantovani , F. , Olivotto , F. , et al. . ( 2011 ). Functional brain changes in early Parkinson’s disease during motor response and motor inhibition . Neurobiology of Aging , 32 , 115 – 124 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Baldo , J. V. , Schwartz , S. , Wilkins , D. , & Dronkers , N. F. ( 2006 ). Role of frontal versus temporal cortex in verbal fluency as revealed by voxel-based lesion symptom mapping . Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , 12 , 896 – 900 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Barbey , A. K. , Colom , R. , & Grafman , J. ( 2013 ). Dorsolateral prefrontal contributions to human intelligence . Neuropsychologia , 51 , 1361 – 1369 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bari , A. , & Robbins , T. W. ( 2013 ). Inhibition and impulsivity: Behavioral and neural basis of response control . Progress in Neurobiology , 108 , 44 – 79 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bellgrove , M. A. , Hester , R. , & Garavan , H. ( 2004 ). The functional neuroanatomical correlates of response variability: Evidence from a response inhibition task . Neuropsychologia , 42 , 1910 – 1916 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bennett , D. S. , Mohamed , F. B. , Carmody , D. P. , Bendersky , M. , Patel , S. , Khorrami , M. , et al. . ( 2009 ). Response inhibition among early adolescents prenatally exposed to tobacco: An fMRI study . Neurotoxicology and Teratology , 31 , 283 – 290 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bernal , B. , & Altman , N. ( 2009 ). Neural networks of motor and cognitive inhibition are dissociated between brain hemispheres: An fMRI study . International Journal of Neuroscience , 119 , 1848 – 1880 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bettcher , B. M. , Mungas , D. , Patel , N. , Elofson , J. , Dutt , S. , Wynn , M. , et al. . ( 2016 ). Neuroanatomical substrates of executive functions: Beyond prefrontal structures . Neuropsychologia , 85 , 100 – 109 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bonini , F. , Burle , B. , Liégeois-Chauvel , C. , Régis , J. , Chauvel , P. , & Vidal , F. ( 2014 ). Action monitoring and medial frontal cortex: Leading role of supplementary motor area . Science (New York) , 343 , 888 – 891 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bonnet , M. C. , Dilharreguy , B. , Allard , M. , Deloire , M. S. , Petry , K. G. , & Brochet , B. ( 2009 ). Differential cerebellar and cortical involvement according to various attentional load: role of educational level . Human Brain Mapping , 30 , 1133 – 1143 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Boroojerdi , B. , Phipps , M. , Kopylev , L. , Wharton , C. M. , Cohen , L. G. , & Grafman , J. ( 2001 ). Enhancing analogic reasoning with rTMS over the left prefrontal cortex . Neurology , 56 , 526 – 528 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Braver , T. S. , Barch , D. M. , Gray , J. R. , Molfese , D. L. , & Snyder , A. ( 2001 ). Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: Effects of frequency, inhibition and errors . Cerebral Cortex , 11 , 825 – 836 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brown , M. R. , Goltz , H. C. , Vilis , T. , Ford , K. A. , & Everling , S. ( 2006 ). Inhibition and generation of saccades: Rapid event-related fMRI of prosaccades, antisaccades, and nogo trials . Neuroimage , 33 , 644 – 659 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brainmap.org Brown , M. R. , Vilis , T. , & Everling , S. ( 2007 ). Frontoparietal activation with preparation for antisaccades . Journal of Neurophysiology , 98 , 1751 – 1762 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Casey , B. J. , Castellanos , F. X. , Giedd , J. N. , Marsh , W. L. , Hamburger , S. D. , Schubert , A. B. , et al. . ( 1997 ). Implication of right frontostriatal circuitry in response inhibition and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder . Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 36 , 374 – 383 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Castelli , F. , Happé , F. , Frith , U. , & Frith , C. ( 2000 ). Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns . Neuroimage , 12 , 314 – 325 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Chevrier , A. D. , Noseworthy , M. D. , & Schachar , R. ( 2007 ). Dissociation of response inhibition and performance monitoring in the stop signal task using event‐related fMRI . Human Brain Mapping , 28 , 1347 – 1358 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Chevrier , A. , & Schachar , R. J. ( 2010 ). Error detection in the stop signal task . Neuroimage , 53 , 664 – 673 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Chikazoe , J. , Jimura , K. , Asari , T. , Yamashita , K. I. , Morimoto , H. , Hirose , S. , et al. . ( 2009 ). Functional dissociation in right inferior frontal cortex during performance of go/no-go task . Cerebral Cortex , 19 , 146 – 152 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Chikazoe , J. , Konishi , S. , Asari , T. , Jimura , K. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 2007 ). Activation of right inferior frontal gyrus during response inhibition across response modalities . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 19 , 69 – 80 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Connolly , J. D. , Goodale , M. A. , Desouza , J. F. , Menon , R. S. , & Vilis , T. , Medical Research Council Group for Action and Perception . ( 2000 ). A comparison of frontoparietal fMRI activation during anti-saccades and anti-pointing . Journal of Neurophysiology , 84 , 1645 – 1655 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cross , E. S. , Schmitt , P. J. , & Grafton , S. T. ( 2007 ). Neural substrates of contextual interference during motor learning support a model of active preparation . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 19 , 1854 – 1871 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Daniel , T. A. , Katz , J. S. , & Robinson , J. L. ( 2016 ). Delayed match-to-sample in working memory: A BrainMap meta-analysis . Biological Psychology , 120 , 10 – 20 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Deblaere , K. , Boon , P. A. , Vandemaele , P. , Tieleman , A. , Vonck , K. , Vingerhoets , G. , et al. . ( 2004 ). MRI language dominance assessment in epilepsy patients at 1.0 T: Region of interest analysis and comparison with intracarotid amytal testing . Neuroradiology , 46 , 413 – 420 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Decety , J. , Jackson , P. L. , Sommerville , J. A. , Chaminade , T. , & Meltzoff , A. N. ( 2004 ). The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investigation . Neuroimage , 23 , 744 – 751 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Delis , D. , Kaplan , E. , & Kramer , N. ( 2001 ). Delis–Kaplan executive function system . Philadelphia: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc . Denckla , M. B. ( 1994 ). Measurement of executive function. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.) , Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 117 – 142 ). Baltimore : Paul H. Brooks . Denckla , M. B. ( 1996 ). A theory and model of executive function: A neuropsychological perspective. In G. R. Lyon , & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.) , Attention, memory and executive function (pp. 263 – 277 ). Baltimore : Paul H Brooks . De Neys , W. , & Van Gelder , E. ( 2009 ). Logic and belief across the lifespan: The rise and fall of belief inhibition during syllogistic reasoning . Developmental Science , 12 , 123 – 130 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS DeSouza , J. F. , Menon , R. S. , & Everling , S. ( 2003 ). Preparatory set associated with pro-saccades and anti-saccades in humans investigated with event-related FMRI . Journal of Neurophysiology , 89 , 1016 – 1023 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS De Zubicaray , G. I. , Andrew , C. , Zelaya , F. O. , Williams , S. C. R. , & Dumanoir , C. ( 2000 ). Motor response suppression and the prepotent tendency to respond: A parametric fMRI study . Neuropsychologia , 38 , 1280 – 1291 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Diamond , A. ( 2013 ). Executive functions . Annual Review of Psychology , 64 , 135 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Diaz , M. T. , & Hogstrom , L. J. ( 2011 ). The influence of context on hemispheric recruitment during metaphor processing . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 23 , 3586 – 3597 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Duncan , J. , & Owen , A. M. ( 2000 ). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands . Trends in Neurosciences , 23 , 475 – 483 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Durston , S. , Thomas , K. M. , Worden , M. S. , Yang , Y. , & Casey , B. J. ( 2002 ). The effect of preceding context on inhibition: An event-related fMRI study . Neuroimage , 16 , 449 – 453 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Durston , S. , Tottenham , N. T. , Thomas , K. M. , Davidson , M. C. , Eigsti , I. M. , Yang , Y. , et al. . ( 2003 ). Differential patterns of striatal activation in young children with and without ADHD . Biological Psychiatry , 53 , 871 – 878 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Durning , S. J. , Costanzo , M. E. , Artino , A. R. , Graner , J. , Vleuten , C. , Beckman , T. J. , et al. . ( 2015 ). Neural basis of nonanalytical reasoning expertise during clinical evaluation . Brain and Behavior , 5 , 3 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Ebisch , S. J. , Perrucci , M. G. , Mercuri , P. , Romanelli , R. , Mantini , D. , Romani , G. L. , et al. . ( 2012 ). Common and unique neuro-functional basis of induction, visualization, and spatial relationships as cognitive components of fluid intelligence . Neuroimage , 62 , 331 – 342 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Eickhoff , S. B. , Bzdok , D. , Laird , A. R. , Kurth , F. , & Fox , P. T. ( 2012 ). Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis revisited . Neuroimage , 59 , 2349 – 2361 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ettinger , U. , Kumari , V. , Kathmann , N. , Reuter , B. , Zelaya , F. , & Williams , S. C. ( 2008 ). Decomposing the neural correlates of antisaccade eye movements using event-related FMRI . Cerebral Cortex , 18 , 1148 – 1159 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Evers , E. A. , Van der Veen , F. M. , Van Deursen , J. A. , Schmitt , J. A. , Deutz , N. E. , & Jolles , J. ( 2006 ). The effect of acute tryptophan depletion on the BOLD response during performance monitoring and response inhibition in healthy male volunteers . Psychopharmacology , 187 , 200 – 208 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Fairhall , S. L. , Anzellotti , S. , Ubaldi , S. , & Caramazza , A. ( 2014 ). Person-and place-selective neural substrates for entity-specific semantic access . Cerebral Cortex , 24 , 168 . Falconer , E. , Bryant , R. , Felmingham , K. L. , Kemp , A. H. , Gordon , E. , Peduto , A. , et al. . ( 2008 ). The neural networks of inhibitory control in posttraumatic stress disorder . Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN , 33 , 413 . Fassbender , C. , Murphy , K. , Foxe , J. J. , Wylie , G. R. , Javitt , D. C. , Robertson , I. H. , et al. . ( 2004 ). A topography of executive functions and their interactions revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging . Cognitive Brain Research , 20 , 132 – 143 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Feinstein , J. S. , Stein , M. B. , & Paulus , M. P. ( 2006 ). Anterior insula reactivity during certain decisions is associated with neuroticism . Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 1 , 136 – 142 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fincham , J. M. , Carter , C. S. , van Veen , V. , Stenger , V. A. , & Anderson , J. R. ( 2002 ). Neural mechanisms of planning: A computational analysis using event-related fMRI . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 99 , 3346 – 3351 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Fletcher , P. C. , Anderson , J. M. , Shanks , D. R. , Honey , R. , Carpenter , T. A. , Donovan , T. , et al. . ( 2001 ). Responses of human frontal cortex to surprising events are predicted by formal associative learning theory . Nature neuroscience , 4 , 1043 – 1048 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Friedman , N. P. , Miyake , A. , Young , S. E. , DeFries , J. C. , Corley , R. P. , & Hewitt , J. K. ( 2008 ). Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 137 , 201 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Finger , E. C. , Mitchell , D. G. , Jones , M. , & Blair , R. J. R. ( 2008 ). Dissociable roles of medial orbitofrontal cortex in human operant extinction learning . Neuroimage , 43 , 748 – 755 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ford , K. A. , Goltz , H. C. , Brown , M. R. , & Everling , S. ( 2005 ). Neural processes associated with antisaccade task performance investigated with event-related FMRI . Journal of Neurophysiology , 94 , 429 – 440 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fox , P. T. , & Lancaster , J. L. ( 2002 ). Mapping context and content: The BrainMap model . Nature Reviews. Neuroscience , 3 , 319 – 321 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Fukui , H. , Murai , T. , Shinozaki , J. , Aso , T. , Fukuyama , H. , Hayashi , T. , et al. . ( 2006 ). The neural basis of social tactics: An fMRI study . Neuroimage , 32 , 913 – 920 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fuster , J. M. ( 1997 ). The prefrontal cortex: Anatomy, physiology, and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe ( 3rd ed ). New York : Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins . Fuster , J. M. ( 2001 ). The prefrontal cortex—an update: Time is of the essence . Neuron , 30 , 319 – 333 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fuster , J. M. ( 2002 ). Frontal lobe and cognitive development . Journal of Neurocytology , 31 , 373 – 385 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Garavan , H. , Ross , T. J. , Kaufman , J. , & Stein , E. A. ( 2003 ). A midline dissociation between error-processing and response-conflict monitoring . Neuroimage , 20 , 1132 – 1139 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Garavan , H. , Ross , T. J. , Murphy , K. , Roche , R. A. P. , & Stein , E. A. ( 2002 ). Dissociable executive functions in the dynamic control of behavior: Inhibition, error detection, and correction . Neuroimage , 17 , 1820 – 1829 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Garavan , H. , Ross , T. J. , & Stein , E. A. ( 1999 ). Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: An event-related functional MRI study . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 96 , 8301 – 8306 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Godefroy , O. ( 2003 ). Frontal syndrome and disorders of executive functions . Journal of Neurology , 250 ( 1 ), 1 – 6 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goel , V. , Gold , B. , Kapur , S. , & Houle , S. ( 1998 ). Neuroanatomical correlates of human reasoning . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 10 , 293 – 302 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Goel , V. , & Dolan , R. J. ( 2001 ). Functional neuroanatomy of three-term relational reasoning . Neuropsychologia , 39 , 901 – 909 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goel , V. , & Dolan , R. J. ( 2004 ). Differential involvement of left prefrontal cortex in inductive and deductive reasoning . Cognition , 93 , B109 – B121 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goldin , P. R. , McRae , K. , Ramel , W. , & Gross , J. J. ( 2008 ). The neural bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion . Biological Psychiatry , 63 , 577 – 586 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Grabner , R. H. , Ansari , D. , Koschutnig , K. , Reishofer , G. , Ebner , F. , & Neuper , C. ( 2009 ). To retrieve or to calculate? Left angular gyrus mediates the retrieval of arithmetic facts during problem solving . Neuropsychologia , 47 , 604 – 608 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Grèzes , J. , Frith , C. , & Passingham , R. E. ( 2004 ). Brain mechanisms for inferring deceit in the actions of others . The Journal of Neuroscience , 24 , 5500 – 5505 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Haier , R. J. , Siegel , B. V. , Nuechterlein , K. H. , Hazlett , E. , Wu , J. C. , Paek , J. , et al. . ( 1988 ). Cortical glucose metabolic rate correlates of abstract reasoning and attention studied with positron emission tomography . Intelligence , 12 , 199 – 217 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Hampshire , A. , Thompson , R. , Duncan , J. , & Owen , A. M. ( 2011 ). Lateral prefrontal cortex subregions make dissociable contributions during fluid reasoning . Cerebral Cortex , 21 ( 1 ), 1 – 10 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Hampshire , A. , Chamberlain , S. R. , Monti , M. M. , Duncan , J. , & Owen , A. M. ( 2010 ). The role of the right inferior frontal gyrus: Inhibition and attentional control . NeuroImage , 50 , 1313 – 1319 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Harenski , C. L. , & Hamann , S. ( 2006 ). Neural correlates of regulating negative emotions related to moral violations . Neuroimage , 30 , 313 – 324 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Hargreaves , I. S. , White , M. , Pexman , P. M. , Pittman , D. , & Goodyear , B. G. ( 2012 ). The question shapes the answer: The neural correlates of task differences reveal dynamic semantic processing . Brain and Language , 120 , 73 – 78 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hausen , H. S. , Lachmann , E. A. , & Nagler , W. ( 1997 ). Cerebral diaschisis following cerebellar hemorrhage . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , 78 , 546 – 549 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Herwig , U. , Brühl , A. B. , Viebke , M. C. , Scholz , R. W. , Knoch , D. , & Siegrist , M. ( 2011 ). Neural correlates of evaluating hazards of high risk . Brain Research , 1400 , 78 – 86 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hester , R. , Murphy , K. , Foxe , J. J. , Foxe , D. M. , Javitt , D. C. , & Garavan , H. ( 2004 ). Predicting success: Patterns of cortical activation and deactivation prior to response inhibition . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 16 , 776 – 785 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hill , A. C. , Laird , A. R. , & Robinson , J. L. ( 2014 ). Gender differences in working memory networks: A BrainMap meta-analysis . Biological Psychology , 102 , 18 – 29 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Horn , N. R. , Dolan , M. , Elliott , R. , Deakin , J. F. W. , & Woodruff , P. W. R. ( 2003 ). Response inhibition and impulsivity: An fMRI study . Neuropsychologia , 41 , 1959 – 1966 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Jack , A. I. , Dawson , A. J. , Begany , K. L. , Leckie , R. L. , Barry , K. P. , Ciccia , A. H. , et al. . ( 2013 ). fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains . NeuroImage , 66 , 385 – 401 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Jia , X. , Liang , P. , Shi , L. , Wang , D. , & Li , K. ( 2015 ). Prefrontal and parietal activity is modulated by the rule complexity of inductive reasoning and can be predicted by a cognitive model . Neuropsychologia , 66 , 67 – 74 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Jimura , K. , Konishi , S. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 2004 ). Dissociable concurrent activity of lateral and medial frontal lobe during negative feedback processing . Neuroimage , 22 , 1578 – 1586 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Johnson-Frey , S. H. , Newman-Norlund , R. , & Grafton , S. T. ( 2005 ). A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills . Cerebral Cortex , 15 , 681 – 695 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Jurado , M. B. , & Rosselli , M. ( 2007 ). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current understanding . Neuropsychology Review , 17 , 213 – 233 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kaladjian , A. , Jeanningros , R. , Azorin , J. M. , Grimault , S. , Anton , J. L. , & Mazzola-Pomietto , P. ( 2007 ). Blunted activation in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex during motor response inhibition in schizophrenia . Schizophrenia Research , 97 , 184 – 193 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kaladjian , A. , Jeanningros , R. , Azorin , J. M. , Nazarian , B. , Roth , M. , Anton , J. L. , et al. . ( 2009 a). Remission from mania is associated with a decrease in amygdala activation during motor response inhibition . Bipolar Disorders , 11 , 530 – 538 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kaladjian , A. , Jeanningros , R. , Azorin , J. M. , Nazarian , B. , Roth , M. , & Mazzola-Pomietto , P. ( 2009 b). Reduced brain activation in euthymic bipolar patients during response inhibition: An event-related fMRI study . Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging , 173 , 45 – 51 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Kalbfleisch , M. L. , Van Meter , J. W. , & Zeffiro , T. A. ( 2007 ). The influences of task difficulty and response correctness on neural systems supporting fluid reasoning . Cognitive Neurodynamics , 1 , 71 – 84 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kelly , A. M. , Hester , R. , Murphy , K. , Javitt , D. C. , Foxe , J. J. , & Garavan , H. ( 2004 ). Prefrontal‐subcortical dissociations underlying inhibitory control revealed by event‐related fMRI . European Journal of Neuroscience , 19 , 3105 – 3112 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kiehl , K. A. , Liddle , P. F. , & Hopfinger , J. B. ( 2000 ). Error processing and the rostral anterior cingulate: An event‐related fMRI study . Psychophysiology , 37 , 216 – 223 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kimmig , H. , Greenlee , M. , Gondan , M. , Schira , M. , Kassubek , J. , & Mergner , T. ( 2001 ). Relationship between saccadic eye movements and cortical activity as measured by fMRI: Quantitative and qualitative aspects . Experimental Brain Research , 141 , 184 – 194 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kohn , N. , Eickhoff , S. B. , Scheller , M. , Laird , A. R. , Fox , P. T. , & Habel , U. ( 2014 ). Neural network of cognitive emotion regulation—an ALE meta-analysis and MACM analysis . Neuroimage , 87 , 345 – 355 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Konishi , S. , Hayashi , T. , Uchida , I. , Kikyo , H. , Takahashi , E. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 2002 ). Hemispheric asymmetry in human lateral prefrontal cortex during cognitive set shifting . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 99 , 7803 – 7808 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Konishi , S. , Jimura , K. , Asari , T. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 2003 ). Transient activation of superior prefrontal cortex during inhibition of cognitive set . The Journal of Neuroscience , 23 , 7776 – 7782 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Konishi , S. , Nakajima , K. , Uchida , I. , Kameyama , M. , Nakahara , K. , Sekihara , K. , et al. . ( 1998 ). Transient activation of inferior prefrontal cortex during cognitive set shifting . Nature Neuroscience , 1 , 80 – 84 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Konishi , S. , Nakajima , K. , Uchida , I. , Sekihara , K. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 1998 ). No‐go dominant brain activity in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging . European Journal of Neuroscience , 10 , 1209 – 1213 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Konishi , S. , Nakajima , K. , Uchida , I. , Kikyo , H. , Kameyama , M. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 1999 ). Common inhibitory mechanism in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by event-related functional MRI . Brain , 122 , 981 – 991 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Kounios , J. , Frymiare , J. L. , Bowden , E. M. , Fleck , J. I. , Subramaniam , K. , Parrish , T. B. , et al. . ( 2006 ). The prepared mind neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight . Psychological Science , 17 , 882 – 890 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Koziol , L. F. , Budding , D. E. , & Chidekel , D. ( 2012 ). From movement to thought: Executive function, embodied cognition, and the cerebellum . The Cerebellum , 11 , 505 – 525 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Kroger , J. K. , Nystrom , L. E. , Cohen , J. D. , & Johnson-Laird , P. N. ( 2008 ). Distinct neural substrates for deductive and mathematical processing . Brain Research , 1243 , 86 – 103 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Kroger , J. K. , Sabb , F. W. , Fales , C. L. , Bookheimer , S. Y. , Cohen , M. S. , & Holyoak , K. J. ( 2002 ). Recruitment of anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in human reasoning: a parametric study of relational complexity. In Cerebral Cortex , 12 , pp. 477 – 485 . Laird , A. R. , Fox , P. M. , Price , C. J. , Glahn , D. C. , Uecker , A. M. , Lancaster , J. L. , et al. . ( 2005 a). ALE meta‐analysis: Controlling the false discovery rate and performing statistical contrasts . Human brain mapping , 25 , 155 – 164 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Laird , A. R. , Lancaster , J. J. , & Fox , P. T. ( 2005 b). Brainmap . Neuroinformatics , 3 , 65 – 77 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Langenecker , S. A. , Kennedy , S. E. , Guidotti , L. M. , Briceno , E. M. , Hooven , T. , Young , E. A. , et al. . ( 2007 ). Frontal and limbic activation during inhibitory control predicts treatment response in major depressive disorder . Biological Psychiatry , 62 , 1272 – 1280 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Langdon , D. , & Warrington , E. K. ( 2000 ). The role of the left hemisphere in verbal and spatial reasoning tasks . Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System And Behavior , 36 , 691 – 702 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Lauro , L. J. R. , Tettamanti , M. , Cappa , S. F. , & Papagno , C. ( 2008 ). Idiom comprehension: A prefrontal task? Cerebral Cortex , 18 , 162 – 170 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lawrence , A. D. , Sahakian , B. J. , Hodges , J. R. , Rosser , A. E. , Lange , K. W. , & Robbins , T. W. ( 1996 ). Executive and mnemonic functions in early Huntington’s disease . Brain , 119 , 1633 – 1645 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Lee , S. S. , & Dapretto , M. ( 2006 ). Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence against a selective role of the right hemisphere . Neuroimage , 29 , 536 – 544 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lehericy , S. , Cohen , L. , Bazin , B. , Samson , S. , Giacomini , E. , Rougetet , R. , et al. . ( 2000 ). Functional MR evaluation of temporal and frontal language dominance compared with the Wada test . Neurology , 54 , 1625 – 1633 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Leung , H. C. , & Cai , W. ( 2007 ). Common and differential ventrolateral prefrontal activity during inhibition of hand and eye movements . Journal of Neurosciences , 27 , 9893 – 9900 . Lewis , S. J. , Dove , A. , Robbins , T. W. , Barker , R. A. , & Owen , A. M. ( 2004 ). Striatal contributions to working memory: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in humans . European Journal of Neuroscience , 19 , 755 – 760 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lezak , M. D. ( 1983 ). Neuropsychological assessment ( 2nd ed ). New York : Oxford University Press . Li , C. S. R. , Chao , H. H. A. , & Lee , T. W. ( 2009 ). Neural correlates of speeded as compared with delayed responses in a stop signal task: An indirect analog of risk taking and association with an anxiety trait . Cerebral Cortex , 19 , 839 – 848 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Li , C. S. , Yan , P. , Chao , H. A. , Sinha , R. , Paliwal , P. , Constable , R. T. , et al. . ( 2008 ). Error-specific medial cortical and subcortical activity during the stop signal task: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study . Neuroscience , 155 , 1142 – 1151 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lie , C. H. , Specht , K. , Marshall , J. C. , & Fink , G. R. ( 2006 ). Using fMRI to decompose the neural processes underlying the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test . Neuroimage , 30 , 1038 – 1049 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Luria , A. R. ( 1969 ). Frontal lobe syndromes. In P. J. Vinken , & G. W. Bruyn (Eds.) , Handbook of clinical neurology , Vol. 2 , pp. 725 – 757 ). Amsterdam : North Holland . Luria , A. R. ( 1976 ). Basic problems of neurolinguistics . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Luria , A. R. ( 1980 ). Higher cortical functions in man . New York : Consultants Bureau . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Liddle , P. F. , Kiehl , K. A. , & Smith , A. M. ( 2001 ). Event‐related fMRI study of response inhibition . Human Brain Mapping , 12 , 100 – 109 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Luo , J. , Li , W. , Qiu , J. , Wei , D. , Liu , Y. , & Zhang , Q. ( 2013 ). Neural basis of scientific innovation induced by heuristic prototype . Plos One , 8 , e49231 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Luo , J. , & Niki , K. ( 2003 ). Function of hippocampus in “insight” of problem solving . Hippocampus , 13 , 316 – 323 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Luo , Q. , Perry , C. , Peng , D. , Jin , Z. , Xu , D. , Ding , G. , et al. . ( 2003 ). The neural substrate of analogical reasoning: An fMRI study . Cognitive Brain Research , 17 , 527 – 534 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS MacDonald , A. W. III , & Carter , C. S. ( 2003 ). Event-related FMRI study of context processing in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of patients with schizophrenia . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 112 , 689 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS MacDonald , A. W. III , Carter , C. S. , Kerns , J. G. , Ursu , S. , Barch , D. M. , Holmes , AJ , et al. . ( 2005 ). Specificity of prefrontal dysfunction and context processing deficits to schizophrenia in never-medicated patients with first-episode psychosis . American Journal of Psychiatry , 162 ( 3 ), 475 – 484 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Maguire , R. P. , Broerse , A. , De Jong , B. M. , Cornelissen , F. W. , Meiners , L. C. , Leenders , K. L. , et al. . ( 2003 ). Evidence of enhancement of spatial attention during inhibition of a visuo-motor response . Neuroimage , 20 , 1339 – 1345 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Maltby , N. , Tolin , D. F. , Worhunsky , P. , O’Keefe , T. M. , & Kiehl , K. A. ( 2005 ). Dysfunctional action monitoring hyperactivates frontal–striatal circuits in obsessive–compulsive disorder: An event-related fMRI study . Neuroimage , 24 , 495 – 503 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Mashal , N. , Faust , M. , Hendler , T. , & Jung-Beeman , M. ( 2007 ). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions . Brain and Language , 100 , 115 – 126 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mashal , N. , Faust , M. , Hendler , T. , & Jung-Beeman , M. ( 2009 ). An fMRI study of processing novel metaphoric sentences . Laterality , 14 , 30 – 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Matsuda , T. , Matsuura , M. , Ohkubo , T. , Ohkubo , H. , Matsushima , E. , Inoue , K. , et al. . ( 2004 ). Functional MRI mapping of brain activation during visually guided saccades and antisaccades: Cortical and subcortical networks . Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging , 131 , 147 – 155 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McNab , F. , Leroux , G. , Strand , F. , Thorell , L. , Bergman , S. , & Klingberg , T. ( 2008 ). Common and unique components of inhibition and working memory: An fMRI, within-subjects investigation . Neuropsychologia , 46 , 2668 – 2682 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mechelli , A. , Viding , E. , Pettersson‐Yeo , W. , Tognin , S. , & McGuire , P. K. ( 2009 ). Genetic variation in neuregulin1 is associated with differences in prefrontal engagement in children . Human Brain Mapping , 30 , 3934 – 3943 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Medalla , M. , Lera , P. , Feinberg , M. , & Barbas , H. ( 2007 ). Specificity in inhibitory systems associated with prefrontal pathways to temporal cortex in primates . Cerebral Cortex , 17 , i136 – i150 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Menon , V. , Adleman , N. E. , White , C. D. , Glover , G. H. , & Reiss , A. L. ( 2001 ). Error‐related brain activation during a Go/NoGo response inhibition task . Human Brain Mapping , 12 , 131 – 143 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Miyake , A. , Friedman , N. , Emerson , M. , Witzki , A. , & Howerter , A. ( 2000 ). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex ‘‘Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis . Cognitive Psychology , 41 , 49 – 100 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Miller , P. , & Wang , X. J. ( 2006 ). Inhibitory control by an integral feedback signal in prefrontal cortex: A model of discrimination between sequential stimuli . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 103 , 201 – 206 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Monchi , O. , Petrides , M. , Doyon , J. , Postuma , R. B. , Worsley , K. , & Dagher , A. ( 2004 ). Neural bases of set-shifting deficits in Parkinson’s disease . The Journal of Neuroscience , 24 , 702 – 710 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Monchi , O. , Petrides , M. , Petre , V. , Worsley , K. , & Dagher , A. ( 2001 ). Wisconsin Card Sorting revisited: Distinct neural circuits participating in different stages of the task identified by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging . Journal of Neuroscience , 21 , 7733 – 7741 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Monchi , O. , Petrides , M. , Strafella , A. P. , Worsley , K. J. , & Doyon , J. ( 2006 ). Functional role of the basal ganglia in the planning and execution of actions . Annals of Neurology , 59 , 257 – 264 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mostofsky , S. H. , Schafer , J. G. , Abrams , M. T. , Goldberg , M. C. , Flower , A. A. , Boyce , A. , et al. . ( 2003 ). fMRI evidence that the neural basis of response inhibition is task-dependent . Cognitive Brain Research , 17 , 419 – 430 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Mulder , M. J. , Baeyens , D. , Davidson , M. C. , Casey , B. J. , Van Den Ban , E. , Van Engeland , H. , et al. . ( 2008 ). Familial vulnerability to ADHD affects activity in the cerebellum in addition to the prefrontal systems . Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 47 , 68 – 75 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Nachev , P. , Kennard , C. , & Husain , M. ( 2008 ). Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas . Nature reviews. Neuroscience , 9 , 856 – 869 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Nagahama , Y. , Okada , T. , Katsumi , Y. , Hayashi , T. , Yamauchi , H. , Oyanagi , C. , et al. . ( 2001 ). Dissociable mechanisms of attentional control within the human prefrontal cortex . Cerebral Cortex , 11 , 85 – 92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Nakahara , K. , Hayashi , T. , Konishi , S. , & Miyashita , Y. ( 2002 ). Functional MRI of macaque monkeys performing a cognitive set-shifting task . Science (New York) , 295 , 1532 – 1536 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Newman , S. D. , Willoughby , G. , & Pruce , B. ( 2011 ). The effect of problem structure on problem-solving: An fMRI study of word versus number problems . Brain Research , 1410 , 77 – 88 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Niendam , T. A. , Laird , A. R. , Ray , K. L. , Dean , Y. M. , Glahn , D. C. , & Carter , C. S. ( 2012 ). Meta-analytic evidence for a superordinate cognitive control network subserving diverse executive functions . Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience , 12 , 241 – 268 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Owen , A. M. ( 2004 ). Cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: The role of frontostriatal circuitry . The Neuroscientist , 10 , 525 – 537 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Owen , A. M. , James , M. , Leigh , P. N. , Summers , B. A. , Marsden , C. D. , Quinn , N. A. , et al. . ( 1992 ). Fronto-striatal cognitive deficits at different stages of Parkinson’s disease . Brain , 115 , 1727 – 1751 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pavuluri , M. N. , Passarotti , A. M. , Harral , E. M. , & Sweeney , J. A. ( 2010 ). Enhanced prefrontal function with pharmacotherapy on a response inhibition task in adolescent bipolar disorder . The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry , 71 ( 11 ), 1 – 478 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Perfetti , B. , Saggino , A. , Ferretti , A. , Caulo , M. , Romani , G. L. , & Onofrj , M. ( 2009 ). Differential patterns of cortical activation as a function of fluid reasoning complexity . Human Brain Mapping , 30 , 497 – 510 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pessiglione , M. , Seymour , B. , Flandin , G. , Dolan , R. J. , & Frith , C. D. ( 2006 ). Dopamine-dependent prediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans . Nature , 442 , 1042 – 1045 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Poldrack , R. A. , Prabhakaran , V. , Seger , C. A. , & Gabrieli , J. D. ( 1999 ). Striatal activation during acquisition of a cognitive skill . Neuropsychology , 13 , 564 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pompei , F. , Jogia , J. , Tatarelli , R. , Girardi , P. , Rubia , K. , Kumari , V. , et al. . ( 2011 ). Familial and disease specific abnormalities in the neural correlates of the Stroop Task in Bipolar Disorder . Neuroimage , 56 , 1677 – 1684 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Prado , J. , & Noveck , I. A. ( 2007 ). Overcoming perceptual features in logical reasoning: A parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 19 , 642 – 657 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Prado , J. , Chadha , A. , & Booth , J. R. ( 2011 ). The brain network for deductive reasoning: A quantitative meta-analysis of 28 neuroimaging studies . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 23 , 3483 – 3497 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Preusse , F. , Van Der Meer , E. , Deshpande , G. , Krueger , F. , & Wartenburger , I. ( 2011 ). Fluid intelligence allows flexible recruitment of the parieto-frontal network in analogical reasoning . Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 5 , 22 . Radanovic , M. , Azambuja , M. , Mansur , L. L. , Porto , C. S. , & Scaff , M. ( 2003 ). Thalamus and language: Interface with attention, memory and executive functions . Arquivos de Neuropsiquiatria , 61 , 34 – 42 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Rao , S. M. , Bobholz , J. A. , Hammeke , T. A. , Rosen , A. C. , Woodley , S. J. , Cunningham , J. M. , et al. . ( 1997 ). Functional MRI evidence for subcortical participation in conceptual reasoning skills . Neuroreport , 8 , 1987 – 1993 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Rapp , A. M. , Leube , D. T. , Erb , M. , Grodd , W. , & Kircher , T. T. ( 2004 ). Neural correlates of metaphor processing . Cognitive Brain Research , 20 , 395 – 402 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ridderinkhof , K. R. , Ullsperger , M. , Crone , E. A. , & Nieuwenhuis , S. ( 2004 ). The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control . Science (New York) , 306 , 443 – 447 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Robbins , T. W. , James , M. , Owen , A. M. , Lange , K. W. , Lees , A. J. , Leigh , P. N. , et al. . ( 1994 ). Cognitive deficits in progressive supranuclear palsy, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple system atrophy in tests sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction . Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry , 57 , 79 – 88 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rogers , R. D. , Andrews , T. C. , Grasby , P. M. , Brooks , D. J. , & Robbins , T. W. ( 2000 ). Contrasting cortical and subcortical activations produced by attentional-set shifting and reversal learning in humans . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 12 , 142 – 162 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Ross , L. A. , & Olson , I. R. ( 2012 ). What’s unique about unique entities? An fMRI investigation of the semantics of famous faces and landmarks . Cerebral Cortex , 22 , 2005 – 2015 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rubia , K. , Russell , T. , Overmeyer , S. , Brammer , M. J. , Bullmore , E. T. , Sharma , T. , et al. . ( 2001 ). Mapping motor inhibition: Conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks . Neuroimage , 13 , 250 – 261 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rubia , K. , Smith , A. B. , Brammer , M. J. , & Taylor , E. ( 2003 ). Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection . Neuroimage , 20 , 351 – 358 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rubia , K. , Smith , A. B. , Woolley , J. , Nosarti , C. , Heyman , I. , Taylor , E. , et al. . ( 2006 ). Progressive increase of frontostriatal brain activation from childhood to adulthood during event‐related tasks of cognitive control . Human Brain Mapping , 27 , 973 – 993 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Salthouse , T. A. ( 1996 ). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition . Psychological Review , 103 ( 3 ), 403 – 428 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Salthouse , T. A. ( 2005 ). Relations between cognitive abilities and measures of executive functioning . Neuropsychology , 19 ( 4 ), 532 – 545 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sauseng , P. , Klimesch , W. , Schabus , M. , & Doppelmayr , M. ( 2005 ). Fronto-parietal EEG coherence in theta and upper alpha reflect central executive functions of working memory . International Journal of Psychophysiology , 57 , 97 – 103 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Schiffer , B. , Pawliczek , C. , Mu , B. , Forsting , M. , Gizewski , E. , Leygraf , N. , et al. . ( 2014 ). Neural mechanisms underlying cognitive control of men with lifelong antisocial behavior . Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging , 222 , 43 – 51 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Schmidt , G. L. , & Seger , C. A. ( 2009 ). Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty . Brain and Cognition , 71 , 375 – 386 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Sebastian , C. L. , Fontaine , N. M. , Bird , G. , Blakemore , S. J. , De Brito , S. A. , McCrory , E. J. , et al. . ( 2012 ). Neural processing associated with cognitive and affective Theory of Mind in adolescents and adults . Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 7 , 53 – 63 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Shane , M. S. , Stevens , M. , Harenski , C. L. , & Kiehl , K. A. ( 2008 ). Neural correlates of the processing of another’s mistakes: A possible underpinning for social and observational learning . Neuroimage , 42 , 450 – 459 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Simmonds , D. J. , Fotedar , S. G. , Suskauer , S. J. , Pekar , J. J. , Denckla , M. B. , & Mostofsky , S. H. ( 2007 ). Functional brain correlates of response time variability in children . Neuropsychologia , 45 , 2147 – 2157 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Smith , J. L. , Johnstone , S. J. , & Barry , R. J. ( 2008 ). Movement-related potentials in the Go/NoGo task: The P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition . Clinical Neurophysiology , 119 , 704 – 714 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Sripada , C. S. , Angstadt , M. , Banks , S. , Nathan , P. J. , Liberzon , I. , & Phan , K. L. ( 2009 ). Functional neuroimaging of mentalizing during the trust game in social anxiety disorder . Neuroreport , 20 , 984 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Stringaris , A. K. , Medford , N. , Giora , R. , Giampietro , V. C. , Brammer , M. J. , & David , A. S. ( 2006 ). How metaphors influence semantic relatedness judgments: The role of the right frontal cortex . NeuroImage , 33 , 784 – 793 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Stringaris , A. K. , Medford , N. C. , Giampietro , V. , Brammer , M. J. , & David , A. S. ( 2007 ). Deriving meaning: Distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and non-meaningful sentences . Brain and Language , 100 , 150 – 162 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Stuss , D. T. , & Knight , R. T. ( 2002 ). Principles of frontal lobe function . Oxford : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Stuss , D. T. , & Levine , B. ( 2002 ). Adult clinical neuropsychology: Lessons from studies of the frontal lobes . Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 401 – 433 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Super , H. , Spekreijse , H. , & Lamme , V. A. ( 2001 ). A neural correlate of working memory in the monkey primary visual cortex . Science (New York) , 293 , 120 – 124 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sylvester , C. Y. C. , Wager , T. D. , Lacey , S. C. , Hernandez , L. , Nichols , T. E. , Smith , E. E. , et al. . ( 2003 ). Switching attention and resolving interference: fMRI measures of executive functions . Neuropsychologia , 41 , 357 – 370 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tamm , L. , Menon , V. , & Reiss , A. L. ( 2002 ). Maturation of brain function associated with response inhibition . Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 41 , 1231 – 1238 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Taylor , A. E. , Saint-Cyr , J. A. , & Lang , A. E. ( 1986 ). Frontal lobe dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease . Brain , 109 , 845 – 883 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Tian , F. , Tu , S. , Qiu , J. , Lv , J. Y. , Wei , D. T. , Su , Y. H. , et al. . ( 2011 ). Neural correlates of mental preparation for successful insight problem solving . Behavioral Brain Research , 216 , 626 – 630 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tirapu Ustárroz , J. , García-Molina , A. , Ríos Lago , M. , & Ardila , A. ( 2012 ). Neuropsicología de la corteza prefrontal y las funciones ejecutivas . Barcelona : Editorial Viguera . Turkeltaub , P. E. , Eden , G. F. , Jones , K. M. , & Zeffiro , T. A. ( 2002 ). Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: Method and validation . NeuroImage , 16 , 765 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Townsend , J. D. , Bookheimer , S. Y. , Foland‐Ross , L. C. , Moody , T. D. , Eisenberger , N. I. , Fischer , J. S. , et al. . ( 2012 ). Deficits in inferior frontal cortex activation in euthymic bipolar disorder patients during a response inhibition task . Bipolar disorders , 14 , 442 – 450 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Turner , B. O. , Marinsek , N. , Ryhal , E. , & Miller , M. B. ( 2015 ). Hemispheric lateralization in reasoning . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1359 , 47 – 64 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *Uchiyama , H. , Seki , A. , Kageyama , H. , Saito , D. N. , Koeda , T. , Ohno , K. , et al. . ( 2006 ). Neural substrates of sarcasm: A functional magnetic-resonance imaging study . Brain Research , 1124 , 100 – 110 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ungar , L. , Nestor , P. G. , Niznikiewicz , M. A. , Wible , C. G. , & Kubicki , M. ( 2010 ). Color Stroop and negative priming in schizophrenia: An fMRI study . Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging , 181 , 24 – 29 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Urbanski , M. , Bréchemier , M. L. , Garcin , B. , Bendetowicz , D. , de Schotten , M. T. , Foulon , C. , et al. . ( 2016 ). Reasoning by analogy requires the left frontal pole: Lesion-deficit mapping and clinical implications . Brain , 139 , 1783 – 1799 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS *van den Heuvel , O. A. , Veltman , D. J. , Groenewegen , H. J. , Cath , D. C. , van Balkom , A. J. , van Hartskamp , J. , et al. . ( 2005 ). Frontal-striatal dysfunction during planning in obsessive-compulsive disorder . Archives of General Psychiatry , 62 , 301 – 309 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Van der Werf , Y. D. , Scheltens , P. , Lindeboom , J. , Witter , M. P. , Uylings , H. B. , & Jolles , J. ( 2003 ). Deficits of memory, executive functioning and attention following infarction in the thalamus; a study of 22 cases with localised lesions . Neuropsychologia , 41 , 1330 – 1344 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS van Enst , W. A. , Ochodo , E. , Scholten , R. J. , Hooft , L. , & Leeflang , M. M. ( 2014 ). Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: A meta-epidemiological study . BMC medical research methodology , 14 , 70 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS van Veen , V. , & Carter , C. S. ( 2005 ). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: A functional MRI study . Neuroimage , 27 , 497 – 504 . Google Scholar CrossRef http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Oxford University Press

Executive Functions Brain System: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-analytic Study