Inhibitory Control and Conflict Monitoring

Scope: Response inhibition, response conflict, conflict monitoring, interference control, executive attention, proactive control, reactive control, error detection, error correction.

Out of scope: Impulsivity as a trait; behavioral inhibition as a temperament construct.

This category contains 9 processes.


Conflict monitoring

Process ID: hed_conflict_monitoring

Detection of co-activation of incompatible response tendencies, proposed to recruit anterior cingulate cortex and trigger cognitive control.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter & Cohen (2001) Psychological Review 108:624–652

Recent references

  • Shenhav, Botvinick & Cohen (2013) Neuron 79:217–240


Error correction

Process ID: hed_error_correction

Adjustment of behavior following an error, including post-error slowing and improvement on subsequent trials.

No tasks in the current catalog are linked to this process.

Fundamental references

  • Rabbitt (1966) Nature 212:438

  • Laming (1979) Acta Psychologica 43:199–224

Recent references

  • Danielmeier & Ullsperger (2011) Frontiers in Psychology 2:233


Error detection

Process ID: hed_error_detection

Recognition that a response was incorrect, indexed by the error-related negativity (ERN) and by error awareness.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Falkenstein, Hohnsbein, Hoormann & Blanke (1991) EEG & Clinical Neurophysiology 78:447–455

  • Gehring, Goss, Coles, Meyer & Donchin (1993) Psychological Science 4:385–390


Executive attention

Process ID: hed_executive_attention

Resolution of conflict among thoughts, feelings, and responses; one of Posner’s three attentional networks.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz & Posner (2002) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14:340–347

Recent references

  • Petersen & Posner (2012) Annual Review of Neuroscience 35:73–89


Interference control

Process ID: hed_interference_control

Resistance to interference from task-irrelevant stimuli or competing response representations, measured by Stroop, Flanker, and Simon effects.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Eriksen & Eriksen (1974) Perception & Psychophysics 16:143–149

Recent references

  • Nigg (2017) Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58:361–383


Proactive control

Process ID: hed_proactive_control

Sustained, anticipatory maintenance of task goals that biases processing in preparation for an expected demand.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Braver et al. (2021) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01768

Recent references

  • Braver (2012) Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:106–113


Reactive control

Process ID: hed_reactive_control

Transient, stimulus-triggered engagement of control after interference or conflict is detected.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Braver et al. (2021) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01768

Recent references

  • Braver (2012) Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:106–113


Response conflict

Process ID: hed_response_conflict

Competing activation of two or more response representations on a single trial, typically engaging cognitive control.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Cohen, Dunbar & McClelland (1990) Psychological Review 97:332–361

Recent references

  • Botvinick (2007) Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 7:356–366


Response inhibition

Process ID: hed_response_inhibition

Suppression of a prepotent or already-initiated response when it becomes inappropriate, indexed behaviorally by stop-signal reaction time or commission errors.

Tasks

The following tasks engage this process:

Fundamental references

  • Logan & Cowan (1984) Psychological Review 91:295–327

Recent references

  • Aron, Robbins & Poldrack (2014) Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18:177–185