Medial Prefrontal Cortex and Error Potentials

Holroyd, Clay B.; Coles, Michael; Nieuwenhuis, Sander

doi:10.1126/science.296.5573.1610

Cited by 92 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Remarkably, correct rejections, which were not associated with any overt motor response, produced a similar neurophysiological signal compared to hits, while errors also differed from fast hits despite similar RTs. In other words, the distinctive signal to errors in dorsal cingulate did not reflect motor commands or actual motor execution per se, but the mismatch between intended and produced action, consistent with the internal monitoring function typically ascribed to ACC (Holroyd, Coles, & Nieuwenhuis, 2002;Ridderinkhof et al, 2007), and different from the motivational monitoring function presumably subserved by the amygdala. The fMRI results obtained for the dorsal cingulate cortex in the same patient further corroborate this conclusion, showing the strongest response to errors compared to all other conditions (hits and correct rejections).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Errors recruit both cognitive and emotional monitoring systems: Simultaneous intracranial recordings in the dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala combined with fMRI

Pourtois¹,

Vocat²,

N’Diaye³

et al. 2010

Neuropsychologia

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied error monitoring in a human patient with unique implantation of depth electrodes in both the left dorsal cingulate gyrus and medial temporal lobe prior to surgery. The patient performed a speeded go/nogo task and made a substantial number of commission errors (false alarms). As predicted, intracranial Local Field Potentials (iLFPs) in dorsal anterior cingulate indexed the detection of errors, showing an early differential activity around motor execution for false alarms, relative to correct responses (either hits or correct inhibitions). More surprisingly, we found that the left amygdala also participated to error monitoring (although no emotional stimuli were used), but with a very different neurophysiological profile as compared with the dorsal cingulate cortex. Amygdala iLFPs showed a precise and reproducible temporal unfolding, characterized by an early monophasic response for correct hits around motor execution, which was delayed by ~300 ms for errors (even though actual RTs were almost identical in these two conditions). Moreover, time-frequency analyses demonstrated a reliable and transient coupling in the theta band around motor execution between these two distant regions. Additional fMRI investigation in the same patient confirmed a differential involvement of the dorsal cingulate cortex vs. amygdala in error monitoring during this go/nogo task. Finally, these intracranial results for the left amygdala were replicated in a second patient with intracranial electrodes in the right amygdala. Altogether, these results suggest that the amygdala may register the motivational significance of motor actions on a trial-by-trial basis, while the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex may provide signals concerning failures of cognitive control and behavioral adjustment. More generally, these data shed new light on neural mechanisms underlying self monitoring by showing that even "simple" motor actions recruit not only executive cognitive processes (in dorsal cingulate) but also affective processes (in amygdala).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Errors recruit both cognitive and emotional monitoring systems: Simultaneous intracranial recordings in the dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala combined with fMRI

Pourtois¹,

Vocat²,

N’Diaye³

et al. 2010

Neuropsychologia

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The earlier latency subcomponent of the CRN was increased in the initial blocks of the experiment (when negative emotional ratings were highest) for responses to stimuli that followed aversive pictures and to a greater extent if they were incongruent. Several researchers have described response and task feedback related ERP components that increase with negative affect associated with error commission or the detection of loss (Falkenstein et al, 2000;Gehring et al, 2002;Holroyd, Coles, & Nieuwenhuis, 2002;Holroyd, Nieuwenhuis, Yeung, & Cohen, 2003;Luu, Flaisch, & Tucker, 2000;Luu, Tucker, & Collins, 2000;Luu et al, 2003;Stemmer et al, 2001). The later latency CRN subcomponent was selectively increased for RVF stimuli following aversive pictures during later experimental trials, when negative emotional reactions to the repeated aversive pictures were attenuated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective and cognitive modulation of performance monitoring: Behavioral and ERP evidence

Simon-Thomas

Knight

2005

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the effects of negative affect on performance monitoring. EEG was acquired during a lateralized, numeric Stroop working memory task that featured task-irrelevant aversive and neutral pictures between stimuli. Performance accuracy showed a right-hemisphere advantage for stimuli that followed aversive pictures. Response-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) from accurate trials showed an early negative component (CRN; correct response/conflict-related negativity) followed by a positive wave comparable to the Pe (error positivity). The CRN was bi-peaked with an earlier peak that was sensitive to aversive pictures during early portions of the experiment and a later peak that increased with error likelihood later in the experiment. Pe amplitude was increased with aversive pictures early in the experiment and was sensitive to picture type, Stroop interference, and hemisphere of stimulus delivery during later trials. This suggests that ERP indices of performance monitoring, the CRN and Pe, are dynamically modulated by both affective and cognitive demands.

show abstract

“…Presumably, this variation reflects the phasic task-dependent coordination of patterns of excitation and inhibition between prefrontal cortex and its efferent targets. Since the prefrontal cortex is thought to play a role in prediction analysis (e.g., Holroyd et al, 2002), we suggest the possibility that its major contribution is to regulate hippocampal and VTA cell excitability according to recent behavioral outcomes. Indeed, Karlsson et al (2012) recently showed that prefrontal cortical representations switch states of stability when conditions of greater uncertainty arise, i.e., when response outcomes do not occur as predicted.…”

Section: A Future Challenge To the Study Of Predictive Memories And Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative hippocampal and decision-making neurocircuitry during goal-relevant predictions and encoding

Mizumori

Tryon

2015

The Connected Hippocampus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medial Prefrontal Cortex and Error Potentials

Cited by 92 publications

References 8 publications

Errors recruit both cognitive and emotional monitoring systems: Simultaneous intracranial recordings in the dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala combined with fMRI

Errors recruit both cognitive and emotional monitoring systems: Simultaneous intracranial recordings in the dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala combined with fMRI

Affective and cognitive modulation of performance monitoring: Behavioral and ERP evidence

Integrative hippocampal and decision-making neurocircuitry during goal-relevant predictions and encoding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About