Table 1.
List of intentional decision studies that meet the inclusion criteria.
| No. | Study | Number of subjects | Imaging modality | Experiment Paradigm | Contrast used in meta-analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Beudel and De Jong, 2009) | 16 | fMRI | RI: Watch number cues to press button using the 2nd to the 5th finger of right hand | Table 1, B. II. finger selection, free versus fixed condition |
| 2 | (Deiber et al., 1991) | 8 | PET | PI: Listen auditory cue to push the joystick to different direction | Table 1. random vs. fixed condition |
| 3 | (Deiber et al., 1996) | 13 | PET | PI: Watch light cue to abduct or elevate the index or little finger with right hand | Table 3, free vs. full condition |
| 4 | (François-Brosseau et al., 2009) | 14 | fMRI | RI: Watch square colour change to press button with 2nd to 5th finger of one hand▲ | Table 3. self-initiated vs. externally-triggered movements, right hand |
| 5 | (Frith et al., 1991) | 6 | PET | RI: Feel the touch cue to lift the 1st or 2nd finger of the right hand | Table 2, study 2, task 3 (free) - task 1 (specified), increased |
| 6 | (Gerardin et al., 2004) | 9 | fMRI | RI: Press button with left or right thumb▲ | Table 1, right hand, select vs. prepare |
| 7 | (Hoffstaedter et al., 2013) | 35 | fMRI | RI: Watch arrow cue to press button with right or left index finger | Table S1, Timed vs. No Choice |
| 8 | (Hyder et al., 1997) | 9 | fMRI | RI: Feel the touch cue to move the first or second finger of the right hand (the paradigm is similar to the PET study by Frith et al., 1991) | Table 1. random vs. repeat |
| 9 | (Krieghoff et al., 2009) | 16 | fMRI | RI: Watch letter cue to press left or right button with the index finger of one hand | Table 1, cue-related activation, internal > external |
| 10 | (Mueller et al., 2007) | 16 | fMRI | RI: Watch visual cue tto press right or left button with the index finger of right hand | Table 1, internally vs. externally selected actions |
| 11 | (Rae et al., 2014) | 17 | fMRI | RI: Watch circle color change to press button with 2nd to 5th finger of right hand | Table S2, action selection (go select > go specified) |
| 12 | (Rowe et al., 2010) | 20 | fMRI | RI: Watch circle colour change to press button with 2nd to 5th finger of right hand | Table 1, chosen vs. specified responses |
| 13 | (Schouppe et al., 2014) | 22 | fMRI | RI: Watch arrow cue to choose the right or left direction (adapted flanker task) | Table 2, voluntary vs. imposed choice |
| 14 | (Van Eimeren et al., 2006) | 12 | fMRI | RI: Watch the circle brightness change to press button with 2nd or 3rd finger of both hands | Table 1, selection vs. non-selection |
| 15 | (Bode et al., 2013) | 15 | fMRI | PI: Choose picture by button pressing | Table 2, free decision vs. high visibility condition |
| 16 | (Filevich et al., 2013) | 23 | fMRI | PI: Choose number with mouse cursor | Table 1, free vs. instructed |
| 17 | (Forstmann et al., 2006) | 22 | fMRI | PI: Choose target by button pressing | Table 1, main contrast of choice |
| 18 | (Lau et al., 2004b) | 12 | fMRI | PI: Choose target pattern with cursor | Table 1, free vs. specified |
| 19 | (Orr and Banich, 2014) | 28 | fMRI | PI: Choose task by button pressing | Table 1, voluntary vs. explicit |
| 20 | (Rens et al., 2018) | 24 | fMRI | PI: Choose target door by button pressing | In text, choice stay vs no-choice Stay |
| 21 | (Rowe et al., 2005) | 12 | fMRI | PI: Choose target by button pressing | Table 2, Combined colour and action tasks |
| 22 | (Rowe et al., 2008) | 20 | fMRI | PI: Choose action by button pressing | Table 3, All free-specified |
| 23 | (Thimm et al., 2012) | 28 | fMRI | PI: Press target button by analysing colour or position cues | Table 1, free vs. specified choice |
| 24 | (Dall'Acqua et al., 2018) | 24 | fMRI | II: Adapted go/no-go paradigm* | Table 2, free-choice vs. cued |
| 25 | (Karch et al., 2010b) | 8 | fMRI | II: Adapted go/no-go paradigm* | Table 4, [(selection- + selection+)– (go + no-go)] in healthy controls |
| 26 | (Karch et al., 2010a) | 15 | fMRI | II: Adapted go/no-go paradigm* | Table 1, Voluntary selection > control |
| 27 | (Karch et al., 2009) | 14 | fMRI | II: Adapted go/no-go paradigm* | Table IV, voluntariness |
| 28 | (Lynn et al., 2016) | 21 | fMRI | II: Pain stop or endurance by button pressing or not | Table 1, Main effect choice: choice > directed |
| 29 | (Omata et al., 2019) | 26 | fMRI | II: Whether to stop the continuous finger-tapping | Table 1, voluntary stop - forced stop |
| 30 | (Schel et al., 2014) | 24 | fMRI | II: Adapted go/no-go paradigm* | Table 1, conjunction intentional action and inhibition |
| 31 | (Frith et al., 1991) | 6 | PET | CI: Generate word or repeat word | Table 2, study 1, task 3 (free) - task 1 (specified), increased |
| 32 | (Jarvstad and Gilchrist, 2019) | 23 | fMRI | CI: saccadic selection | Table 2, choice (choice vs. low) |
| 33 | (Ort et al., 2019) | 22 | fMRI | CI: Redirect attention to target(s) without actual movement | Table S3, Proactive Events > Reactive Events (collapsed across Trial Transition) |
| 34 | (Taylor et al., 2008) | 18 | fMRI | CI: Redirect attention to target(s) without actual movement | Table 1, choice vs. instructed |
| 35 | (Wisniewski et al., 2016) | 35 | fMRI | CI: mathematical calculation (subtract or addition) | Table 1, free vs. cued |
| Total | / | 633 | / | / | / |
⁎
The adapted go/no-go task includes intentional trials in addition to conventional go/no-go trials. In each intentional trial, participants were free to choose whether to respond.
▲
The study reported the contrast of intentional decision and specified response separately for left and right hands. Only the results from the dominant hand (right hand) were included in the meta-analysis.