Detecting Wrong Notes in Advance: Neuronal Correlates of Error Monitoring in Pianists

Abstract

Music performance is an extremely rapid process with low incidence of errors even at the fast rates of production required. This is possible only due to the fast functioning of the self-monitoring system. Surprisingly, no specific data about error monitoring have been published in the music domain. Consequently, the present study investigated the electrophysiological correlates of executive control mechanisms, in particular error detection, during piano performance. Our target was to extend the previous research efforts on understanding of the human action-monitoring system by selecting a highly skilled multimodal task. Pianists had to retrieve memorized music pieces at a fast tempo in the presence or absence of auditory feedback. Our main interest was to study the interplay between auditory and sensorimotor information in the processes triggered by an erroneous action, considering only wrong pitches as errors. We found that around 70 ms prior to errors a negative component is elicited in the event-related potentials and is generated by the anterior cingulate cortex. Interestingly, this component was independent of the auditory feedback. However, the auditory information did modulate the processing of the errors after their execution, as reflected in a larger error positivity (Pe). Our data are interpreted within the context of feedforward models and the auditory-motor coupling.

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

“…Moreover, the use of mean amplitude measures for the pre-ERN, ERN, Pe and FRN is also compatible with previous ERP studies (e.g. Ridderinkhof et al, 2003;Ruiz et al, 2009;Yu and Zhou, 2009;Potts et al, 2010;San Martin et al, 2010;Dhar and Pourtois, 2011).…”

“…This control analysis confirmed that the pre-ERN component was still visible (though slightly reduced) for commission errors in comparison to hits, when RTs were matched between conditions (hence when neutralizing potential stimulus-locked ERP effects), making it unlikely that the pre-ERN was mainly driven by a differential component overlap across conditions. Altogether, the results of these extensive control analyses suggest that this pre-response ERP component likely reflects error likelihood, being larger for risky (i.e., fast) decisions relative to safer (i.e., slower) perceptual decisions (see also Ruiz et al, 2009). …”

“…Another ERP component sensitive to errors, the pre-ERN (pre-error negativity), has been described more recently by Ruiz and colleagues (Ruiz et al, 2009). These authors recorded ERPs in expert pianists while they performed a memorized music piece at fast tempo in the presence vs. absence of auditory feedback.…”

“…These authors recorded ERPs in expert pianists while they played memorized music pieces at a fast tempo in presence vs. absence of auditory feedback. They found a frontocentral negativity 70 ms prior to response errors (i.e., hitting the wrong key on the piano), with underlying cortical sources in the ACC, and interpreted this component as indicating an error signal of the self-monitoring system (Ruiz et al, 2009). …”

“…Therefore, this control analysis demonstrates that the use of the pre-stimulus interval (compared to a preresponse baseline which includes the pre-ERN component) does not compromise the main statistical outcome, and thereby provides further evidence that the pre-ERN findings are not simply resulting from the use of a pre-response baseline. Having said that, given that the use of a pre-response baseline is the classical way for computing response-locked ERPs (including for pre-response components; see Ruiz et al, 2009), we presented primarily ERP results obtained with a pre-response baseline in our study. Moreover, this approach allows to get rid of potential pre-response/pre-motor ERP activities related to motor preparation.…”