2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neural mechanisms and temporal dynamics of performance monitoring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

44
353
4
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 378 publications
(425 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
44
353
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…error rate was 0.2). For this experiment we considered each different recording day as a different condition to test the classifier generalisation 1 . The second experiment follows the same approach where the user monitors the cursor movements.…”
Section: A Experimental Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…error rate was 0.2). For this experiment we considered each different recording day as a different condition to test the classifier generalisation 1 . The second experiment follows the same approach where the user monitors the cursor movements.…”
Section: A Experimental Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The existence of brain activity correlated to error monitoring has been widely studied using different imaging methods [1]. Several works have uncovered electroencephalography correlates of errors of different nature, including errors committed by oneself [2], error related to the perceived feedback [3] as well as errors in the interaction with external devices [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Altered self-monitoring is a core feature of many psychiatric disorders, with deficient monitoring seen in schizophrenia (Frith and Done, 1989;Turken et al, 2003), and excessive monitoring in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) (Salkovskis, 1999;Gehring et al, 2000). Numerous studies have implicated the medial frontal cortex (MFC), especially the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), in this crucial executive control function (Carter et al, 2001;Rushworth et al 2004;Posner et al 2007;Ridderinkhof et al 2007;Ullsperger et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Converging evidence from electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies suggests that common neural mechanisms are involved in monitoring self-generated errors -when subjects make wrong decisions in response to cues-as well as when they observe erroneous external events or feedbacks (van Schie et al, 2004;Cavanagh, Zambrano-Vazquez, and Allen, 2012;Ullsperger et al, 2014). The medial frontal cortex (MFC), and more specifically the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) has been suggested as the putative locus of these mechanisms (Milner et al, 2004;de Bruijn et al, 2009;Shane et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The electrophysiological signature of these monitoring processes appears as an event-related potential (ERP) over frontocentral areas elicited by both self-generated and external errors (Cavanagh, Zambrano-Vazquez, and Allen, 2012;Ullsperger et al, 2014). In the former case, the ERP shows an early negative deflection, termed as error-related negativity (ERN), appearing no later than 120 ms after the erroneous motor response (Gehring et al, 1993).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%