The latter may be attributed to automatic, effortless, and efficient spreading of activation to the phonological lexicon. Likewise, automatic spreading

of activation to phonetic/articulatory processing may have caused the prominent suppression of bilateral sensory-motor regions for categorical distractors, which at the same time placed strong Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical demands on semantic memory retrieval and cognitive control to inhibit the distractor. This finding offers a neural explanation for a previous cognitive account of the facilitatory potential in categorical distractors (Finkbeiner and Caramazza 2006). All of these neural components have been predescribed to be sensitive to conceptual/semantic priming. Below, we present a detailed discussion of our findings. Table 5 Panobinostat Overview of brain areas suppressed for each distractor type organized according to Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical their presumed functions Resemblance of suppression in interference tasks to priming We aimed to examine if suppressed brain networks resembled those previously found for priming and predicted this to be true (see Table 5; Fig. 3). Indeed, each related distractor revealed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical reduced brain activations in priming-related brain regions, that is, in visual areas regularly observed for perceptual/visual object priming (occipitotemporal regions; Simons et

al. 2003; Wig et al. 2005; Horner and Henson 2008) and in areas related to monitoring previously found to be implicated in priming (ACC; Wible et al. 2006; Matsumoto et al. 2005; Simons et al. 2003; electrophysiological

findings Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical in Hirschfeld et al. 2008). Moreover, areas linked to word production were suppressed (bilateral precentral gyrus, insula, thalamus; Indefrey and Levelt 2004). The presence of deactivation in both hemispheres despite left-hemisphere language dominance is in accordance with our previous findings Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical on the bilateral network of picture naming (Abel et al. 2011). The distractors varied in the extent and plenitude of suppressed brain areas over and above these general priming effects (Table 5; Fig. 3). Phonological distractors yielded the broadest repetition suppression effects (see Table 5); they additionally placed low demands on mental imagery (precuneus; Cabeza mafosfamide and Nyberg 2000), conceptual processing (bilateral FG; Simons et al. 2003; Vigneau et al. 2006), cognitive control (inhibition in left orbitomedial prefrontal cortex [OMPFC]: Fuster et al. 2000), controlled processing (pre-SMA: Alario et al. 2006), memory retrieval and encoding (bilateral parahippocampal gyrus; Cabeza and Nyberg 2000), and word production (bilateral postcentral gyrus, cerebellum, brainstem; Indefrey and Levelt 2004). This pattern of deactivations most closely resembles the neural responses reported for visual object priming.