Evidence for hierarchical error processing in the human brain

Krigolson, Olave E.; Holroyd, Clay B.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.10.064

Cited by 93 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably absent from our imaging results was the activation of posterior parietal regions, which were previously shown to be involved in tracking errors (Krigolson and Holroyd, 2006) or making on-line corrections (Desmurget et al, 1999(Desmurget et al, , 2004a during continuous motor tasks. Given that in these studies the posterior parietal cortex was said to be implicated in a "low-level" type of control, the lack of activation in our case may indicate that subjects used a higher-level type of control based on prefrontal regions.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

“…It may be, therefore, that subjects in our study applied a higher-order cognitive rule (e.g., move finger in opposite directions), whereas if cursor deviations were to be at random or as part of a reaching move, a low-level type of control may have been in place, involving the parietal regions and possibly the cerebellum (Doyon et al, 2003). Also, these previous tasks were mostly reaching movements (Desmurget et al, 1999(Desmurget et al, , 2004b or maintaining a cursor in a region between two moving barriers (Krigolson and Holroyd, 2006). Therefore, the cognitive processes in our task compared with these previous studies may be very different, because the subjects' goals were different.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neural Changes in Control Implementation of a Continuous Task

Lungu¹,

Binenstock²,

Pline³

et al. 2007

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly agreed that control implementation, being a resource-consuming endeavor, is not exerted continuously or in simple tasks. However, most research in the field was done using tasks that varied the need for control on a trial-by-trial basis (e.g., Stroop, flanker) in a discrete manner. In this case, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was found to monitor the need for control, whereas regions in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) were found to be involved in control implementation. Whether or not the same control mechanism would be used in continuous tasks was an open question. In our study, we found that in a continuous task, the same neural substrate subserves control monitoring (ACC) but that the neural substrate of control implementation changes over time. Early in the task, regions in the PFC were involved in control implementation, whereas later the control was taken over by subcortical structures, specifically the caudate. Our results suggest that humans possess a flexible control mechanism, with a specific structure dedicated to monitoring the need for control and with multiple structures involved in control implementation.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Neural Changes in Control Implementation of a Continuous Task

Lungu¹,

Binenstock²,

Pline³

et al. 2007

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These ERN studies of motor tasks have consistently shown a fronto-central negative-polarity potential associated with goal attainment errors ("high-level" errors) (as defined by Krigolson and Holroyd 2006). This activity resulted when participants incorrectly responded with the wrong hand or amount of force (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These types of errors are binary in nature ("correct or incorrect") with corrections not possible following a response. However, corrections are possible for response execution errors ("low-level" errors) (as defined by Krigolson and Holroyd 2006); for example, correcting an initially erroneous trajectory to reach a desired target (Contreras- Vidal and Kerick 2004;Krigolson and Holroyd 2007a;Krigolson et al 2008) or avoid an oncoming barrier Holroyd 2006, 2007b). For these types of errors, Krigolson and Holroyd (2006) observed parietal activity without medialfrontal/ERN activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Performance Monitoring During Sensorimotor Adaptation

Anguera

Seidler²,

Gehring³

2009

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error detection and correction are essential components of motor skill learning. These processes have been well characterized in cognitive psychology using electroencephalography (EEG) to record an eventrelated potential (ERP) called error-related negativity (ERN). However, it is unclear whether this ERP component is sensitive to the magnitude of the error made in a sensorimotor adaptation task. In the present study, we tested the function of error-related activity in a visuomotor adaptation task. To examine whether error size is reflected in the ERP, two groups of participants adapted manual aiming movements to either a small (30°) or large (45°) rotation of the visual feedback display. Each participant's trials were sorted into large and small error trials using a median split to examine potential error magnitude waveform differences. We also examined these trial types at the early and late stages of adaptation. There were no group differences for the behavioral or neural measures; however, waveforms from large error trials were significantly different from small error trials. The waveforms also changed as a function of practice as early adaptation waveforms were larger than late adaptation waveforms. The observed ERP component reflected differences in error magnitude with the amount of activity corresponding to the size of the error. Movement monitoring potentials likely affected the frequency and time course of the waveform so that it did not resemble the typical ERN; however, error-related activity was still distinguishable. The present findings are discussed in terms of current theories of the ERN as well as skill acquisition.

show abstract

“…The FRN is a negative deflection, maximal at frontocentral recording sites, occurring approximately 250 msec after negative feedback (Miltner et al, 1997). The interpretation of the FRN is assumed to be very similar to the ERN: Both are thought to reflect error signals that indicate a violation of a "high-level" goal, and have been assumed to be relevant for the adaptive modification of behavior (Krigolson & Holroyd, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support

Castellar

Kühn

Fias

et al. 2010

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable number of studies have recently used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the mechanisms underlying error processing. Nevertheless, how these mechanisms are associated with behavioral adjustments following errors remains unclear. In the present study, we investigated how posterror slowing is linked to outcome expectations and error feedback. We used an adaptive four-choice reaction time task to manipulate outcome expectancy. Behaviorally, the results show posterror slowing when errors are unexpected and postcorrect slowing when correct responses are unexpected, indicating that outcome expectancy is crucial for posterror slowing. ERP analyses revealed that the error-related negativity and the feedback-related negativity were not correlated with the behavioral reaction time pattern, whereas the P3 was. The results support the hypothesis that posterror slowing is caused by attentional orienting to unexpected events.

show abstract

Evidence for hierarchical error processing in the human brain

Cited by 93 publications

References 20 publications

Neural Changes in Control Implementation of a Continuous Task

Neural Changes in Control Implementation of a Continuous Task

Changes in Performance Monitoring During Sensorimotor Adaptation

Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About