Cognitive Demands of Error Processing

Abstract

This study used a dual-task methodology to assess attention demands associated with error processing during an anticipation-timing task. A difference was predicted in attention demands during feedback on trials with correct responses and errors. This was addressed by requiring participants to respond to a probe reaction-time stimulus after augmented feedback presentation. 16 participants (8 men, 8 women) completed two phases, the reaction time task only and the anticipation-timing task with the probe RT task. False feedback indicating error and a financial reward manipulation were used to increase relevance of errors. Data supported the hypothesis that error processing is associated with higher cognitive demands than processing feedback denoting a correct response. Individuals responded with quicker probe reaction times during presentation of feedback on correct trials than on error trials. These results are discussed with respect to the cognitive processes which might occur during error processing and their role in motor learning.

Cognitive demands of error processing associated with preparation and execution of a motor skill

“…The findings of the study are partially consistent with those of Koehn et al (2008), which highlighted an association between error processing and increased cognitive demand. Koehn et al found that PRT, in the time period immediately following presentation of augmented feedback, was lengthened when feedback indicated an error, relative to when feedback indicated no error.…”

“…Increased cognitive activity probably represented evaluation of the magnitude and cause of the error and possibly methods of correcting the error on subsequent trials. However, the cognitive system for processing spatial error (current study) may be somewhat different for processing temporal error (Koehn et al, 2008). For example, it may be more difficult to identify or consciously monitor very small discrepancies in anticipation timing than to identify and monitor the spatial parameters of whole body movements.…”

“…Koehn, Dickinson, and Goodman (2008) asked participants to perform an anticipation-task and assessed the cognitive demands of processing success or error feedback using a secondary probe reaction time (PRT) task. They found that processing error feedback was more cognitively demanding, as evidenced by elongated PRTs, than processing feedback indicating success.…”

Knowing the good from the bad: Does being aware of KR content matter?

“…To account for these findings, providing KR based on relatively good trials has been speculated to increase the motivation of the participant to learn the task, that as a result, reinforces the cognitive processes required to reproduce the correct motor response on upcoming trials and subsequent learning (Badami, VaezMousavi, Wulf, & Namazizadeh, 2011;Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007;. In fact, the cognitive demands required to reproduce a correct response have proven to be less demanding and perhaps more desirable for the learner compared to the cognitive demands associated with correcting an error (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2005Kohen, Dickinson, & Goodman, 2008).…”

Self-controlled knowledge of results: Age-related differences in motor learning, strategies, and error detection

“…The preference for feedback after good trials has been interpreted as a motivational factor during skill acquisition (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002) and the perception that less cognitive effort is required to reproduce a successful response compared to the cognitive effort required to update a motor plan for an unsuccessful response (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002, 2005Koehen, Dickinson, & Goodman, 2008). The benefits of self-control have been primarily demonstrated in younger adults (see Wulf, 2007 for a review) and more recently in 10 year old children (Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Laroque de Medeiros, Kaefer, & Tani, 2008).…”