Modeling behavioral measures of error detection in choice tasks: Response monitoring versus conflict monitoring.

Abstract

The present study investigated the mechanisms underlying error detection in the error signaling response. The authors tested between a response monitoring account and a conflict monitoring account. By implementing each account within the neural network model of N. Yeung, M. M. Botvinick, and J. D. , they demonstrated that both accounts make different predictions as to how error signaling performance is influenced by varying the participants' response criterion. These predictions were tested in an experiment using the Eriksen-flanker task. The qualitative pattern as well as a model fit favored the response monitoring account, which states that error detection is mediated by detecting internal error corrections.

Impaired rapid error monitoring but intact error signaling following rostral anterior cingulate cortex lesions in humans

“…Specifically, this response monitoring account of error detection assumes that error detection is achieved by a mechanism which compares the initially executed response with the response activated during extended processing of the stimulus after error commission and, if it detects a discrepancy, it concludes that the first response was an error. Indeed, manipulating the response criterion affects error signaling responses and overt error correction responses in a highly similar way (Steinhauser et al, 2008; see also Steinhauser and Yeung, 2012) supporting the idea that error signaling is based on internal error corrections. In the present study, not only the frequency of error signaling responses, but also the frequency of spontaneous error corrections was entirely intact in rACC patients (see also, Modirrousta and Fellows, 2008).…”

“…This raises the question, of how error awareness is otherwise achieved. A recent mechanistic account of error detection (Steinhauser et al, 2008) holds that a tendency for internal self-corrections forms the basis for error awareness (see also, Rabbitt et al, 1978; Rabbitt and Vyas, 1981). Specifically, this response monitoring account of error detection assumes that error detection is achieved by a mechanism which compares the initially executed response with the response activated during extended processing of the stimulus after error commission and, if it detects a discrepancy, it concludes that the first response was an error.…”

“…Interestingly, the conflict monitoring account of the Ne/ERN (Botvinick et al, 2001; Yeung et al, 2004), assumes that post-error response conflict between the executed response and the self-correction tendency gives rise to the Ne/ERN. Thus, internal error correction mediated by the DLPFC could provide the basis for both error awareness as suggested by the response monitoring account (Steinhauser et al, 2008), and the generation of the Ne/ERN in the ACC as suggested by the conflict monitoring account (Yeung et al, 2004). …”

Distinct regions of anterior cingulate cortex signal prediction and outcome evaluation

“…Numerous models have attempted to describe the functions of the ACC, including conflict monitoring (Botvinick et al, 2004; Carter et al, 1998) error likelihood (Brown and Braver, 2007, 2005), outcome unexpectedness (Oliveira et al, 2007; Jessup et al, 2010), volatility (Behrens et al, 2007), error monitoring (Holroyd and Coles, 2002; Steinhauser et al, 2008) and simple time-on-task (Carp et al, 2010; Grinband et al, 2010). While each of these theories has accounted for certain aspects of ACC function, each fails to account for certain important phenomena.…”

How task errors affect subsequent behavior: Evidence from distributional analyses of task-switching effects

“…In the following sections, we report three experiments designed to test the idea that the effects of erroneous task strengthening are compensated for on trials with slow reobserved that the reversed effects even occurred when the participants were aware of the errors (as measured by error signaling; see also Steinhauser, Maier, & Hübner, 2008). In contrast, if errors were corrected immediately after the response, the usual switch costs occurred on the subsequent trial.…”