Event-Related Brain Potentials Following Incorrect Feedback in a Time-Estimation Task: Evidence for a “Generic” Neural System for Error Detection

Miltner, Wolfgang H. R.; Braun, Christoph; Coles, Michael

doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.788

Cited by 1,347 publications

(1,411 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

126

Mentioning

1,248

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research confirmed that both ERN and FRN, computed as the difference between the ERPs to negative versus positive outcomes, display highly similar EEG voltage distributions characterized by a frontal–central negative focus, sometimes a more anterior distribution for FRN (Martin & Potts, 2011; Miltner et al, 1997; Potts, Martin, Kamp, & Donchin, 2011). EEG and MEG source modeling also supported common neural generator in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC, Keil et al, 2010; Miltner et al, 2003; Nieuwenhuis, Slagter, von Geusau, Heslenfeld, & Holroyd, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…In the case of ERN, the outcome is communicated either by an efferent copy of the motor program (Falkenstein et al, 1995; Stahl & Gibbons, 2007) or by proprioceptive input (Holroyd & Coles, 2002), while FRN is triggered whenever the outcome information arrives via external sensory (visual, auditory, etc.) inputs (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002; Miltner et al, 1997). However, this hypothesis has received little experimental support so far.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence for a general performance‐monitoring system in the human brain

Zubarev

Parkkonen

2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive behavior relies on the ability of the brain to form predictions and monitor action outcomes. In the human brain, the same system is thought to monitor action outcomes regardless of whether the information originates from internal (e.g., proprioceptive) and external (e.g., visual) sensory channels. Neural signatures of processing motor errors and action outcomes communicated by external feedback have been studied extensively; however, the existence of such a general action‐monitoring system has not been tested directly. Here, we use concurrent EEG‐MEG measurements and a probabilistic learning task to demonstrate that event‐related responses measured by electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography display spatiotemporal patterns that allow an effective transfer of a multivariate statistical model discriminating the outcomes across the following conditions: (a) erroneous versus correct motor output, (b) negative versus positive feedback, (c) high‐ versus low‐surprise negative feedback, and (d) erroneous versus correct brain–computer‐interface output. We further show that these patterns originate from highly‐overlapping neural sources in the medial frontal and the medial parietal cortices. We conclude that information about action outcomes arriving from internal or external sensory channels converges to the same neural system in the human brain, that matches this information to the internal predictions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for a general performance‐monitoring system in the human brain

Zubarev

Parkkonen

2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, our finding of increased N2 could be related to the feedback-related negativity (FRN). The FRN is a negative deflection that is recorded with a peak latency of around 250 ms, elicited following an unexpected negative feedback (i.e., to an inaccurate response) (Miltner et al, 1997). Our SMS tasks were not designed to offer a feedback stimulus itself, however, it is possible that the shifted stimulus at T0 functions as a feedback signal due to its dissimilarity with the preceding tones (T-4 to T-1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingent negative variation (CNV) associated with sensorimotor timing error correction

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Detection and subsequent correction of sensorimotor timing errors is fundamental to adaptive behavior. Using scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs), we sought to find ERP components that are predictive of error correction performance during rhythmic movements.Method: Healthy right-handed participants were asked to synchronize their finger taps to a regular tone sequence (every 600 ms), whilst EEG data were continuously recorded. Data from 15 participants were analyzed. Occasional irregularities were built into stimulus presentation timing: 90 ms before (advances: negative shift) or after (delays: positive shift) the expected time point. A tapping condition alternated with a listening condition in which identical stimulus sequence was presented but participants did not tap.Results: Behavioral error correction was observed immediately following a shift, with a degree of over-correction with positive shifts. Our stimulus-locked ERP data analysis revealed, 1) increased auditory N1 amplitude for the positive shift condition and decreased auditory N1 modulation for the negative shift condition; and 2) a second enhanced negativity (N2) in the tapping positive condition, compared with the tapping negative condition. In response-locked epochs, we observed a CNV (contingent negative variation)-like negativity with earlier latency in the tapping negative condition compared with the tapping positive condition. This CNV-like negativity peaked at around the onset of subsequent tapping, with the earlier the peak, the better the error correction performance with the negative shifts while the later the peak, the better the error correction performance with the positive shifts.Discussion: This study showed that the CNV-like negativity was associated with the error correction performance during our sensorimotor synchronization study. Auditory N1 and N2 were differentially involved in negative vs. positive error correction. However, we did not find 3 evidence for their involvement in behavioral error correction. Overall, our study provides the basis from which further research on the role of the CNV in perceptual and motor timing can be developed.

show abstract

“…Two ERP components, the FRN and the P3, were chosen as the ERP measures of feedback processing (Donchin, Ritter, & McCallum, 1978; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002; Miltner, Braun, & Coles, 1997; Polich & Kok, 1995). The FRN is a medial frontal negativity that appears approximately 200–300 ms following feedback presentation, which is larger following monetary losses than gains (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002; Walsh & Anderson, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Xue

Broster

et al. 2017

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOutcome feedback which indicates behavioral consequences are crucial for reinforcement learning and environmental adaptation. Nevertheless, outcome information in daily life is often totally or partially ambiguous. Studying how people interpret this kind of information would provide important knowledge about the human evaluative system.MethodsThis study concentrates on the neural processing of partially ambiguous feedback, that is, either its valence or magnitude is unknown to participants. To address this topic, we sequentially presented valence and magnitude information; electroencephalography (EEG) response to each kind of presentation was recorded and analyzed. The event‐related potential components feedback‐related negativity (FRN) and P3 were used as indices of neural activity.ResultsConsistent with previous literature, the FRN elicited by ambiguous valence was not significantly different from that elicited by negative valence. On the other hand, the FRN elicited by ambiguous magnitude was larger than both the large and small magnitude, indicating the motivation to seek unambiguous magnitude information. The P3 elicited by ambiguous valence and ambiguous magnitude was not significantly different from that elicited by negative valence and small magnitude, respectively, indicating the emotional significance of feedback ambiguity. Finally, the aforementioned effects also manifested in the stage of information integration.ConclusionThese findings indicate both similarities and discrepancies between the processing of valence ambiguity and that of magnitude ambiguity, which may help understand the mechanisms of ambiguous information processing.

show abstract

Event-Related Brain Potentials Following Incorrect Feedback in a Time-Estimation Task: Evidence for a “Generic” Neural System for Error Detection

Cited by 1,347 publications

References 5 publications

Evidence for a general performance‐monitoring system in the human brain

Evidence for a general performance‐monitoring system in the human brain

Contingent negative variation (CNV) associated with sensorimotor timing error correction

Valence and magnitude ambiguity in feedback processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About