Medial frontal negativities predict performance improvements during motor sequence but not motor adaptation learning

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Correct response negativity may reflect subjective value of reaction time under regulatory fit in a speed‐rewarded task

“…Our findings could also be consistent with a mechanism based on partial-error effects. If a participant were to initiate an erroneous motor response, correct it, and then ultimately respond accurately (Masaki & Segalowitz, 2004;Matsuhashi et al, 2021), this could result in a relationship between slower RT and larger amplitude CRN. Such a scenario would be consistent with the hypothesis that CRNs represent a negative subjective valuation of suboptimal responding.…”

“…Such a scenario would be consistent with the hypothesis that CRNs represent a negative subjective valuation of suboptimal responding. A subtle difference is that the suboptimal responding discussed by Masaki and Segalowitz (2004) and Matsuhashi et al (2021) takes the form of a partial error, as measured by a motor response initially directed toward an incorrect button press or button release. The experience of the partial error leads to a CRN, whereas the correction of this partial error slows RT.…”

“…However, future work might sharpen or enhance this effect, yielding a more practically useful signal. CRN might be an implicit reporter of attention (Matsuhashi et al, 2021;van Noordt et al, 2015van Noordt et al, , 2016 more broadly. Future studies could look at relationship between CRN values and various measures of attention.…”

“…When the response is correct, a CRN is observed (Vidal et al., 2000 ). The CRN is less well‐studied, but its amplitude appears to reflect subjective uncertainty in the response correctness (Scheffers & Coles, 2000 ), response strategy evaluation (Bartholow et al., 2005 ), attentional control or effortful vigilance (Matsuhashi et al, 2021 ; van Noordt et al, 2015 , 2016 ), and/or motivation to respond correctly (Imhof & Rüsseler, 2019 ), with a larger (more negative) CRN associated with more uncertainty, suboptimal strategy, greater attention or vigilance, and higher motivation, respectively. The CRN appears to have many properties in common with the ERN, and some evidence indicates that they share a common neural generator in the anterior cingulate (Roger et al., 2010 ); however, others have pointed out that approaches showing a common source use methods that are likely to obscure source differences (Endrass et al., 2012 ), and other methods point to the ERN and CRN having non‐identical neural generators (Endrass et al., 2012 ; Vocat et al., 2008 ), although there is general agreement that both ERN and CRN have a common peak over fronto‐central electrode sites.…”

“…The CRN is pronounced when associated with a correct response falling after an explicit response deadline (Heldmann et al., 2008 ), so a relation between CRN amplitude and response time might be due to a deadline or to general pressure to respond quickly (Coles et al., 2001 ), although this relationship might rely on the presence of external pressure to respond quickly (Vidal et al., 2003 ). This relationship could also arise as a result of partial error commission (Masaki & Segalowitz, 2004 ; Matsuhashi et al, 2021 ), wherein a participant begins to make an error, represses that initial response, and then makes the correct response. This process would lead to both a slower response time and a larger CRN.…”