Errata
In “Composite Measures of Brain Activation Predict Individ-
ual Differences in Behavioral Stroop Interference” by Smith,
l. l., Snyder, h. r., Hankin, B. l., and Banich, METRO. t. [ Diario
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35, 781–801, 2023. https://doi
.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01977], Cifra 1 contained an error in
which the line under the mid-cingulate cortex read “Work-
ing Memory Biasing” but should have read “Late-Stage
Response Selection.” The correct figure is present below:
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
/
j
/
oh
C
norte
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
3
5
6
1
0
6
1
2
0
8
2
8
1
1
/
/
j
oh
C
norte
_
X
_
0
1
9
9
9
pag
d
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Cifra 1. (A) The cascade-of-control model (Banich, 2009, 2019) outlining the brain regions that are involved in controlling interference in the
tarea de tropa. For an incongruent trial, such as the word “Yellow” written in green ink, control is implemented via a cascade. Primero, regions of IFJ enact
an abstract task set that serves to bias sensory and perceptual processing toward the task-relevant color information and/or away from the task-
irrelevant word information. Next along the cascade, mid-DLPFC regions select the task-relevant information that should be maintained in working
memory (p.ej., green not yellow). At the final stage considered within the current study, caudal regions of mid-cingulate bias late-stage response
selection toward the task-appropriate response (p.ej., button press for green). En tono rimbombante, the degree to which one region is active in controlling
Stroop interference depends on how well control has been implemented at prior points in the cascade. (B) Example of strong top–down biasing via
IFJ. (C) Example of weak top–down biasing via IFJ.
© 2023 Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts
Revista de neurociencia cognitiva 35:6, páginas. 1061
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_x_01999
