Isolating component processes of posterror slowing with the psychological refractory period paradigm.

Steinhauser, Marco; Ernst, Benjamin; Ibald, Kevin W

doi:10.1037/xlm0000329

Cited by 29 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That PES consists of non-adaptive as well as adaptive components is in line with recent findings (Steinhauser et al, 2016; Van der Borght et al, 2016). …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…From drift diffusion modeling of our data we provide further support for the notion that response time adaptation after errors is a multi-component phenomenon, synthesizing both functional and non-functional accounts of PES (Purcell and Kiani, 2016; Steinhauser et al, 2016; Van der Borght et al, 2016). Our models show that errors during the visual search task were followed by an increase in decision threshold that remained above post-correct decision threshold levels over the course of the following five trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…According to this proposal, task selective attention should increase over the trials following the first post-error trial and thereby increase performance accuracy. This stipulation is reinforced by recent results from a dual task paradigm, showing both control and interference components in PES (Steinhauser et al, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Sustained Influence of an Error on Future Decision-Making

Schiffler

Bengtsson

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-error slowing (PES) is consistently observed in decision-making tasks after negative feedback. Yet, findings are inconclusive as to whether PES supports performance accuracy. We addressed the role of PES by employing drift diffusion modeling which enabled us to investigate latent processes of reaction times and accuracy on a large-scale dataset (>5,800 participants) of a visual search experiment with emotional face stimuli. In our experiment, post-error trials were characterized by both adaptive and non-adaptive decision processes. An adaptive increase in participants’ response threshold was sustained over several trials post-error. Contrarily, an initial decrease in evidence accumulation rate, followed by an increase on the subsequent trials, indicates a momentary distraction of task-relevant attention and resulted in an initial accuracy drop. Higher values of decision threshold and evidence accumulation on the post-error trial were associated with higher accuracy on subsequent trials which further gives credence to these parameters’ role in post-error adaptation. Finally, the evidence accumulation rate post-error decreased when the error trial presented angry faces, a finding suggesting that the post-error decision can be influenced by the error context. In conclusion, we demonstrate that error-related response adaptations are multi-component processes that change dynamically over several trials post-error.

show abstract

“…That PES consists of non-adaptive as well as adaptive components is in line with recent findings (Steinhauser et al, 2016; Van der Borght et al, 2016). …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Sustained Influence of an Error on Future Decision-Making

Schiffler

Bengtsson

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There already is recent behavioral evidence supporting the fact that there are two dissociable types of PES, with one being transient (and potentially orienting related), and the other being more long lasting (Steinhauser, Ernst, & Ibald, ). Importantly, the current theory makes the specific prediction that strategic PES, as an error‐specific process that is deliberately invoked, will only occur when it is strategically beneficial with regard to the source of the error.…”

Section: Section Iv: Implications and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An adaptive orienting theory of error processing

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to detect and correct action errors is paramount to safe and efficient goaldirected behaviors. Existing work on the neural underpinnings of error processing and post-error behavioral adaptations has led to the development of several mechanistic theories of error processing. These theories can be roughly grouped into adaptive and maladaptive theories. While adaptive theories propose that errors trigger a cascade of processes that will result in improved behavior after error commission, maladaptive theories hold that error commission momentarily impairs behavior. Neither group of theories can account for all available data, as different empirical studies find both impaired and improved post-error behavior. This article attempts a synthesis between the predictions made by prominent adaptive and maladaptive theories. Specifically, it is proposed that errors invoke a nonspecific cascade of processing that will rapidly interrupt and inhibit ongoing behavior and cognition, as well as orient attention toward the source of the error. It is proposed that this cascade follows all unexpected action outcomes, not just errors. In the case of errors, this cascade is followed by error-specific, controlled processing, which is specifically aimed at (re) tuning the existing task set. This theory combines existing predictions from maladaptive orienting and bottleneck theories with specific neural mechanisms from the wider field of cognitive control, including from error-specific theories of adaptive post-error processing. The article aims to describe the proposed framework and its implications for post-error slowing and post-error accuracy, propose mechanistic neural circuitry for post-error processing, and derive specific hypotheses for future empirical investigations. K E Y W O R D Sattention, cognitive control, error processing, inhibitory control, orienting, performance monitoring | IN TRO DUCT IO NThe ability to adapt behavior after erroneous actions is one of the key components of human cognitive control. Correcting current and avoiding future errors is paramount to survival. These abilities are the centerpiece of the scientific field of performance monitoring. Research into the neurophysiological and behavioral changes associated with error processing has generated several influential theories over the past few decades, which seek to explain how the human brain reacts to error commission. While many existing theories entail unique mechanisms and propose specific corollaries, one factor by which all theories can be roughly classified is whether they propose that psychological and neural processes triggered by error commission are maladaptive or adaptive. Empirically, this classification can be made based on whether a theory predicts that error commission is ultimately beneficial or detrimental to post-error behavior. Specifically, adaptive theories propose that errors trigger a cascade of neural processes that represents a remedial effort of the cognitive system, which is explicitly targeted at avoiding f...

show abstract

“…One solution to this problem would be to 91 serialize not only task processing but also the accompanying error monitoring processes 92 (Hochman & Meiran, 2005). Processing a T1 error could lead to an additional deferment of 93 T2 processing, an effect that has indeed been demonstrated in behavioral studies (Jentzsch & 94 Dudschig, 2009;M. Steinhauser, Ernst, & Ibald, 2017).…”

Section: Introduction 18mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive rescheduling of error monitoring in multitasking

Steinhauser

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1The concurrent execution of temporally overlapping tasks leads to considerable 2 interference between the subtasks, which is overcome by a neural mechanism that actively 3 defers processing of the secondary task. In this study, we recorded error-related scalp 4 potentials to investigate whether such a mechanism can also be found in error monitoring. 5Participants worked on a multitasking paradigm with partially overlapping execution of two 6 tasks (T1, T2). The error positivity, a correlate of conscious error evaluation, was reduced 7 after T1 errors but occurred after a correct T2-response instead. MVPA-based and regression-8 based single-trial analysis revealed a trial-wise trade-off between immediate and postponed 9 error processing. Two follow-up experiments confirmed this finding, showed that this result is 10 not due to credit-assignment errors in which a T1 error is falsely attributed to T2, and verified 11 the link to conscious error detection. These findings demonstrate a remarkable flexibility of 12 the human brain when adapting to multitasking situations. 13 14 (150 words) 15 16

show abstract

Isolating component processes of posterror slowing with the psychological refractory period paradigm.

Cited by 29 publications

References 26 publications

The Sustained Influence of an Error on Future Decision-Making

The Sustained Influence of an Error on Future Decision-Making

An adaptive orienting theory of error processing

Adaptive rescheduling of error monitoring in multitasking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About