Table 1.

Overview of the functional neuroimaging datasets included in the ALE meta‐analyses

			Sample			Task				Number of Reported Activation Foci
Data set #	Study	Imaging technique	N	Sex (m/f)	Mean age (years)	ToL version	Minimum number of movesa	Solution execution	Design	Overall planning	Planning complexity
1.1	Baker et al. [1996]	PET	6	5/1	31	SoC	1–6 moves	no	B	20
1.2	Elliott et al. [1997]	PET	6	5/1	31	SoC	2–3 vs. 4–5 moves	no	B		8
2	Beauchamp et al. [2003]	PET	12	6/6	56.8	SoC	3–5 moves	yes	B	11
3	Boghi et al. [2006]	fMRI	18	9/9	35.9	WATT	1–3 vs. 4–6 moves	no	n.r.	14	8
4	Campbell et al. [2009]	fMRI	1	1/0	21	Original ToL	n.r.	yes	n.r.	18
5	Cohen et al. [2015]	fMRI	17	15/2	20.9	WATT	1–7 moves	no	E		13
6	Dagher et al. [1999]	PET	6	2/4	58.6	SoC	1–5 moves	yes	B	29	22
7	de Ruiter et al. [2009]	fMRI	19	19/0	34.1	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	9	9
8	de Ruiter et al. [2011]	fMRI	15	0/15	58.2	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	17
9	den Braber et al. [2008]	fMRI	12	5/7	32.8	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	13	11
10	Desco et al. [2011]	fMRI	14	9/5	13.4	SoC	2–5 moves	no	B	21
11	Fallon et al. [2013]	fMRI	52	23/29	64.3	SoC	2–4 moves	no	E	7
12	Goethals et al. [2004]	SPECT	10	6/4	24	Original ToL	2–6 moves	yes	B	1
13	Huyser et al. [2010]	fMRI	25	9/16	13.7	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	14	10
14	Just et al. [2007]	fMRI	18	15/3	24.5	SoC	1–3 moves	no	B	13
15	Kempton et al. [2011]	fMRI	10	5/5	16.8	SoC	2–4 moves	no	E	8
16	Lazeron et al. [2000]	fMRI	9	5/4	22	Original ToL	2–7 moves	no	B	10
17	Lazeron et al. [2004]	fMRI	18	12/4	36.6	Original ToL	2–4, 6–8 moves	no	B	8
18	Liemburg et al. [2015]	fMRI	20	14/6	31.1	Original ToL	1–2 vs. 3–5 moves	no	B	6	3
19.1	Owen et al. [1996]	PET	12	6/6	41.4	SoC	3–5 moves	yes	B	26
19.2	Owen et al. [1998]	PET	6	4/2	57.7	SoC	3 vs. 4–5 moves	yes	B		1
20	Rasmussen et al. [2006]	fMRI	8	8/0	25	Original ToL	3–5 moves	yes	B	25	9
21	Rowe et al. [2001]	PET	10	10/0	27	SoC	0–9 moves	yes, no	B	17
22.1	Schall et al. [2003]	PET	6	5/1	33.8	WATT	1–7 moves	no	B		6
22.2		fMRI	6	5/1	31	WATT	1–7 moves	no	B	8	3
23	Schöepf et al. [2011]	fMRI	28	12/16	27.3	Original ToL	n.r.	no	B	9
24	Spreng et al. [2010]	fMRI	20	3/17	21.3	Original ToL	3–7 moves	no	E	20
25	Stokes et al. [2011]	fMRI	47	19/28	35.7	SoC	3–5 moves	no	B	8
26	van den Heuvel et al. [2003]	fMRI	22	11/11	29.9	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	18	26
27	van den Heuvel et al. [2013]	fMRI	11	4/7	25.5	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	20	25
28.1	van't Ent et al. [2014]	fMRI	46	13/33	36.9	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	8
28.2		fMRI	45	13/32	36.9	Original ToL	1–5 moves	no	E	3
29	Wagner et al. [2006]	fMRI	17	9/8	27.5	Original ToL	2–5 moves	no	E	10

Note. Listed are reference numbers and respective studies with author and year of all 31 studies that were included in the ALE analysis on Overall Planning or Planning Complexity. Moreover, the respective imaging technique, the sample size (overall and separated for gender), mean age of the sample, and the amount of reported activation foci are listed. SoC, Stocking of Cambridge. WATT, Ward and Allport Tower Task.

^aThe minimum number of moves states the all problem difficulties that were utilized in the studies. Moreover, if there is solely a range listed (e.g., 1–5 moves) the reported planning complexity analysis was parametrical whereas if there are two numbers or ranges listed separated by a “vs.” (e.g., 1–3 vs. 4–6 moves) the reported planning complexity analyses was categorical. n.r., not reported; B, block design; E, event‐related design.