Internal and external information in error processing

Heldmann, Marcus; Rüsseler, Jascha; Münte, Thomas F.

doi:10.1186/1471-2202-9-33

Cited by 69 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the best of our knowledge, no ERP study to date has reported an enhanced FRN component in anxiety or negative affect. This observation challenges the assumption that this ERP component reflects the counterpart of the ERN when action monitoring is primarily achieved based on external evaluative feedback (as opposed to internal motor or cognitive effects for the ERN, see Gehring and Willoughby, 2002;Heldmann et al, 2008;Holroyd and Coles, 2002a;Miltner et al, 1997) and that both components can be related to a common theta band oscillatory process (Cavanagh et al, 2012;Cohen, 2011).…”

Section: Evidence From Individual Differences and Psychopathologymentioning

confidence: 55%

Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative review

Koban

Pourtois

2014

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

155

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(max 170 words)Action monitoring allows the swift detection of conflicts, errors, and the rapid evaluation of outcomes. These processes are crucial for learning, adaptive behavior, and for the regulation of cognitive control. Our review discusses neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies that have explored the contribution of emotional and social factors during action monitoring. Metaanalytic brain activation maps demonstrate reliable overlap of error monitoring, emotional, and social processes in the dorsal mediofrontal cortex (dMFC), lateral prefrontal areas, and anterior insula (AI). Cumulating evidence suggests that action monitoring is modulated by trait anxiety and negative affect, and that activity of the dMFC and the amygdala during action monitoring might contribute to the 'affective tagging' of actions along a valence dimension. The role of AI in action monitoring may be the integration of outcome information with self-agency and social context factors, thereby generating more complex situation-specific and conscious emotional feeling states. Our review suggests that action-monitoring processes operate at multiple levels in the human brain, and are shaped by dynamic interactions with affective and social processes.Keywords: Anterior insula; dorsal cingulate cortex; mediofrontal cortex; amygdala; error monitoring; ERN; feedback processing; social cognition; emotions; cognitive control; emotioncognition interactions; meta-analysis 3 Overview and motivationIn order to adapt their behavior, to detect and learn from errors, and ultimately to increase their chances of survival, humans and other animals have to monitor their actions (Rabbitt, 1966). Flexible regulation of behavior requires its constant evaluation in terms of performance and outcomes, as well as in terms of costs and future consequences. Action and error monitoring have been studied for several decades in psychology and neuroscience (for previous reviews see (Etkin et al., 2011;Moser et al., 2013;Pessoa, 2008;Proudfit et al., 2013;Shackman et al., 2011;Shenhav et al., 2013), we propose that error and action monitoring is an intrinsically affective and social process. However, we show that meta-analytic activation maps support overlapping brain responses to error processing, emotional, and social information processing not only in dMFC, but also in several other brain regions, including anterior insula and lateral prefrontal cortex.Further, recent intracranial electrophysiological recordings showed error-related activity in the amygdala, suggesting this limbic region may contribute to affective responses to errors and negative action outcomes. In the closing part, we outline an integrative framework for 4 understanding the brain systems underlying affective and social interactions with action monitoring, which may be crucial to foster behavioral control in real life.

show abstract

Section: Evidence From Individual Differences and Psychopathologymentioning

confidence: 55%

Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative review

Koban

Pourtois

2014

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

155

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This observation is consistent with the first indicator hypothesis of the RL theory Nieuwenhuis et al, 2004), showing that rapid activation of a prediction error signal depends upon the type of errors made by the participants. Because commission errors can be detected on a first indicator made readily accessible through the internal monitoring of motor representations, the detection of accuracy errors is likely based on the rapid monitoring of external feedback information (Heldmann et al, 2008;Gentsch et al, 2009;Vocat et al, 2011). The selectivity of a Pe effect for commission errors might also hint at differences in error evaluation, and in subsequent adjustments in cognitive control, which might be more needed following failures of response inhibition (i.e., Commission errors).…”

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, an ERN or an FRN component is generated depending respectively on whether internal information (i.e., response) or external information (i.e., feedback) is the "first indicator" of an unfavorable outcome, an hypothesis that has received direct empirical support (Staedtgen et al, 2000;Heldmann et al, 2008;Gentsch et al, 2009;Krigolson et al, 2009;Stahl, 2010). To put it simply, the RL theory predicts that errors which can be detected on the basis of internal (motor) information elicit an ERN following the response but no FRN following the feedback, whereas errors which cannot be detected based on the internal motor command and require the processing of an external signal elicit an FRN following negative performance feedback, but no ERN following the response (Eppinger et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error detection is essential for monitoring performance and preparing subsequent behavioral adjustments, and is associated with specific neural responses in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). To investigate whether different brain mechanisms subserve the processing of commission vs. accuracy errors, we recorded EEG in adult participants while they performed a novel speeded GO-NOGO aiming task ("the Shoot-NoShoot paradigm"). Our ERP results show that commission errors (responding during NOGO trials) elicited a classical error-related negativity (ERN) component, followed by an error-related positivity (Pe), as well as a negativity peaking before response onset (pre-ERN). By contrast, spatial accuracy errors elicited a feedback-related negativity (FRN), which correlated with the spatial discrepancy between response and target position across subjects. Fast hits also elicited a pre-ERN but no ERN, suggesting that this pre-response monitoring component might be related to the detection of error likelihood. Although source analysis revealed similar generators in ACC for these different error-related negativities, the respective timing differed, suggesting that commission errors are detected rapidly based on internal motor representations, whereas the detection of accuracy errors in ACC relies on the additional and swift processing of external visual information.

show abstract

“…According to the reinforcement learning theory (Holroyd & Coles, 2002), action monitoring can be based either directly on the internal representation of the action, or on external feedback information, which is usually available some time after action execution (Gentsch, Ullsperger, & Ullsperger, 2009;Heldmann, Rüsseler, & Münte, 2008;Holroyd & Coles, 2002). Monitoring is mainly based on internal representation of own or observed motor action, when the information about the correctness or goal conduciveness of a given action is available already at the time of or even before the onset of the motor response.…”

Section: Effects Of Social Context and Predictive Relevance On Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of social context and predictive relevance on action outcome monitoring

Koban

Pourtois

Bediou

et al. 2012

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcome monitoring is crucial for subsequent adjustments in behavior and is associated with a specific electrophysiological response, the feedback-related negativity (FRN). Besides feedback generated by one's own action, the performance of others may also be relevant for oneself, and the observation of outcomes for others' actions elicits an observer FRN (oFRN). To test how these components are influenced by social setting and predictive value of feedback information, we compared event-related potentials, as well as their topographies and neural generators, for performance feedback generated by oneself and others in a cooperative versus competitive context. Our results show that (1) the predictive relevance of outcomes is crucial to elicit an FRN in both players and observers, (2) cooperation increases FRN and P300 amplitudes, especially in individuals with high traits of perspective taking, and (3) contrary to previous findings on gambling outcomes, oFRN components are generated for both cooperating and competing observers, but with smaller amplitudes in the latter. Neural source estimation revealed medial prefrontal activity for both FRN and oFRN, but with additional generators for the oFRN in the dorsolateral and ventral prefrontal cortex, as well as the temporoparietal junction. We conclude that the latter set of brain regions could mediate social influences on action monitoring by representing agency and social relevance of outcomes and are, therefore, recruited in addition to shared prediction error signals generated in medial frontal areas during action outcome observation

show abstract

Internal and external information in error processing

Cited by 69 publications

References 36 publications

Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative review

Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative review

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

Effects of social context and predictive relevance on action outcome monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About