Contextualizing individual differences in error monitoring: Links with impulsivity, negative affect, and conscientiousness

Abstract

The error-related negativity (ERN) is a neural measure of error processing that has been implicated as a neurobehavioral trait and has transdiagnostic links with psychopathology. Few studies, however, have contextualized this traitlike component with regard to dimensions of personality that, as intermediate constructs, may aid in contextualizing links with psychopathology. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to examine the interrelationships between error monitoring and dimensions of personality within a large adult sample (N = 208). Building on previous research, we found that the ERN relates to a combination of negative affect, impulsivity, and conscientiousness. At low levels of conscientiousness, negative urgency (i.e., impulsivity in the context of negative affect) predicted an increased ERN; at high levels of conscientiousness, the effect of negative urgency was not significant. This relationship was driven specifically by the conscientiousness facets of competence, order, and deliberation. Links between personality measures and error positivity amplitude were weaker and nonsignificant. Post-error slowing was also related to conscientiousness, as well as a different facet of impulsivity: lack of perseverance. These findings suggest that, in the general population, error processing is modulated by the joint combination of negative affect, impulsivity, and conscientiousness (i.e., the profile across traits), perhaps more so than any one dimension alone. This work may inform future research concerning aberrant error processing in clinical populations.

Theta-Band Functional Connectivity and Single-Trial Cognitive Control in Sports-Related Concussion: Demonstration of Proof-of-Concept for a Potential Biomarker of Concussion

“…For example, participants demonstrating post-error speeding may be using a proactive inhibitory strategy, whereas participants demonstrating PES may be using a reactive inhibitory strategy (Buzzell et al, 2018;Cavanagh et al, 2017;Narayanan, Cavanagh, Frank, & Laubach, 2013). Moreover, compensatory mechanisms, effort, anxiety, or depression (see Cavanagh et al, 2017;Gehring et al, 1993;Hill, Samuel, & Foti, 2016;and Olvet, Klein, & Hajcak, 2010 for examples of moderators of error-related brain activity) can also modulate mPFC-lPFC connectivity and may have contributed to the pattern of results in this study.…”

Moderators of the internal consistency of error‐related negativity scores: A meta‐analysis of internal consistency estimates

“…A total of 106 unique articles was found from searching each database, and an additional 20 articles/datasets were received through contacting labs that routinely examine the internal consistency of ERPs, through examining the references of identified articles, or through social media. Nine articles were excluded for not reporting coefficient alpha estimates for the number of trials used as a cutoff of data inclusion (Cassidy, Robertson, & O'Connell, 2012;Chong & Meyer, 2019;DuPuis et al, 2015;Hill, Samuel, & Foti, 2016;Ip et al, 2018;Lin, 2019;Lin, Stephens, Gavin, & Davies, 2018;Riesel, Richter, Kaufmann, Kathmann, & Endrass, 2015;Segalowitz et al, 2010). Five articles were excluded for having overlapping samples with other studies (Clayson & Miller, 2017a;Larson et al, 2010;Larson, Clayson, & Baldwin, 2014a;Llerena, Wynn, Hajcak, Green, & Horan, 2016;Riesel, Weinberg, Endrass, Meyer, & Hajcak, 2013).…”

Corrigendum

“…While working on a follow‐up project, the authors of Hill, Samuel and Foti () found an error wherein approximately fifty percent of the study data was affected. They have corrected this error, and the corrected results are shared here.…”