Error reactivity in self-paced performance: Highly-accurate individuals exhibit largest post-error slowing

Abstract

Reaction time is typically increased following an erroneous response. This post-error slowing is traditionally explained by a strategic adjustment of response threshold towards more conservative behaviour. A recently proposed orienting account provides an alternative explanation for post-error slowing. According to this account, committing an error evokes an orienting response (OR), which inhibits information processing in the subsequent trial, resulting in slow and inaccurate performance. We tested a straightforward prediction of the orienting account in the context of self-paced performance, adopting an individual-differences approach: Post-error slowing should be larger the less frequent an error is. To this end, participants were classified into three groups differing in overall performance accuracy. Larger post-error slowing and stronger post-error accuracy decrease were observed for the high-accuracy group than for the two other groups. Practice pronounced the post-error accuracy decline, especially for the high-accuracy group. The results are consistent with the orienting account of post-error slowing but are problematic for accounts based on strategic evaluation mechanisms.

Context Specificity of Post-Error and Post-Conflict Cognitive Control Adjustments

“…While this pattern of results is consistent with findings in support of the orienting account [15], [16], sustained post-error performance in the Stroop Stay condition remained consistent with a control-based account. Given that the orienting response may co-occur with control adjustment following errors, measures of sustained post-error performance may provide a more reliable and specific index of control-mediated aspects of post-error behavior.…”

“…post-correct slowing) occurring in contexts in which errors are more frequent than correct responses. Similarly, increased post-error slowing has also been reported in highly accurate individuals, relative to their more error-prone counterparts, as would be predicted on the basis of error frequency [15], [18].…”

“…Conditions with higher ERs were associated with elevated baseline RTs but the latter factor more strongly predicted variation in post-error slowing magnitude when effects of error frequency were partialed out. It is important to note, however, that this effect may not directly apply to results exploring individual differences in error frequency that have been reported elsewhere [15], [18]. For example, elevated baseline RTs and increased post-error slowing magnitude have been demonstrated in highly accurate individuals [15] and may also apply when response accuracy is emphasized over speed [24], [29].…”

“…Because the orienting response is most robust to uncommon, “oddball” events, evidence of an inverse relationship between error frequency and post-error slowing magnitude has been offered in support of the orienting account [15], [18]. In line with a control-based account of post-error slowing, however, frequent errors may also promote a more conservative response criterion, as evidenced by elevated baseline RT.…”

A perspective on neural and cognitive mechanisms of error commission

“…However, several lines of evidence suggest that these effects only occur when error are infrequent (Notebaert et al, 2009) and is also modulated by the instruction (i.e., focus on accuracy vs. speed, Jentzsch and Leuthold, 2005) as well as if the task is self-paced (Steinborn et al, 2012). …”