Independent component analysis of erroneous and correct responses suggests online response control

Abstract

After errors in reaction tasks, a sharp negative wave emerges in the event-related potential (ERP), the error (related) negativity (Ne or ERN). However, also after correct trials, an Ne-like wave is seen, called CRN or Nc, which is much smaller than the Ne. This study tested the hypothesis whether Ne and Nc reflect the same functional process, and whether this process is linked to online response control. For this purpose, independent component analysis (ICA) was utilized with the EEG data of two types of reaction tasks: a flanker task and a mental rotation task. To control for speed-accuracy effects, speed and accuracy instructions were balanced in a between subjects design. For both tasks ICA and dipole analysis revealed one component (Ne-IC) explaining most of the variance for the difference between correct and erroneous trials. The Ne-IC showed virtually the same features as the raw postresponse ERP, being larger for erroneous compared to correct trials and for the flanker than for the rotation task. In addition, it peaked earlier for corrected than for uncorrected errors. The results favor the hypothesis that Ne and Nc reflect the same process, which is modulated by response correctness and type of task. On the basis of the literature and the present results, we assume that this process induces online response control, which is much stronger in error than correct trials and with direct rather than indirect stimulus response mapping.

Performance monitoring in obsessive–compulsive undergraduates: Effects of task difficulty

“…In line with previous findings Falkenstein, 2004;Johannes et al, 2002;Kaczkurkin, 2013;Pailing & Segalowitz, 2004a;Schreiber et al, 2012) we found that the magnitude of ERN decreased with increasing task difficulty. Effects of task difficulty on CRN amplitude have been observed less consistently across studies with some reporting increased CRN with higher difficulty (Kaczkurkin, 2013;Pailing & Segalowitz, 2004b;Schreiber et al, 2012) and some reporting no effects (Falkenstein, 2004;Hoffmann & Falkenstein, 2010). The present study did not reveal effects of difficulty on the CRN.…”

“…These findings indicate that group differences might not be obtained in tasks that are very difficult (Kaczkurkin, 2013), do not include response conflict, have a undetermined stimulus-response mapping or require learning . Together with results indicating that the ERN varies significantly across tasks (Hoffmann & Falkenstein, 2010;Riesel, Weinberg, Endrass, Meyer, & Hajcak, 2013;Segalowitz et al, 2010) this emphasizes the impact of varying task characteristics on electrophysiological markers of performance monitoring and highlights the need to examine a wide range of task and systematically explore the influence of task characteristics.…”

“…The present study did not reveal effects of difficulty on the CRN. One possible explanation could be that even in the easy condition correct responses during an RDC are accompanied by uncertainty and online response control is required to successfully perform (Hoffmann & Falkenstein, 2010) as reflected in the comparably large CRN in all conditions. Thus, increasing the difficulty may not have further enhanced CRN amplitude.…”

“…This is further supported by the fact that errors and correct responses did not differ in reaction time and behavioral adjustment in the very difficult condition and that performance was at chance level. It is still debated what is reflected in the outcome independent performance monitoring process that seems to be shared by ERN and CRN and suggestions include strategic control (Bartholow et al, 2005), conflict evaluation (Suchan, Jokisch, Skotara, & Daum, 2007) or online response control (Hoffmann & Falkenstein, 2010).…”

“…In addition to the ERN a smaller negative deflection with a similar timing and scalp distribution has been observed following correct responses (CRN, Ford, 1999). It is still debated whether both response-related negativities reflect the activity of the same process (Hoffmann & Falkenstein, 2010;Vidal, Hasbroucq, Grapperon, & Bonnet, 2000), different processes (Yordanova, Falkenstein, Hohnsbein, & Kolev, 2004) or whether both share one common process and the ERN reflects an additional error-specific process (Endrass, Klawohn, Gruetzmann, Ischebeck, & Kathmann, 2012;Luu & Tucker, 2001).…”