Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support

Castellar, Elena Patricia Núñez; Kühn, Simone; Fias, Wim; Notebaert, Wim

doi:10.3758/cabn.10.2.270

Cited by 119 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this effect did not correlate with the amplitude of the ERN (at least when preceding error RT was not taken into account). This is in accord with the results of some studies (Gehring & Fencsik, 2001;Nunez Castellar et al, 2010;van Meel et al, 2007), but not with others (Debener et al, 2005;Gehring et al, 1993;Holroyd et al, 2005). One reason for the failure to find such a relation could be that internallycaused errors in the flanker paradigm represent a mixture of different error types (e.g., speed errors and attention errors; cf.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…In the following, we consider two types of behavioral adjustments following errors. The first and most frequently reported type of behavioral adjustment is posterror slowing, reflected by generally increased response times (RTs) following errors (Laming, 1979;Rabbitt, 1966), which has been shown to be positively correlated with the Ne/ERN amplitude in some studies (Debener et al, 2005;Gehring et al, 1993;Holroyd, Yeung, Coles, & Cohen, 2005), but not in others (e.g., Gehring & Fencsik, 2001;Nunez Castellar, Kühn, Fias, & Notebaert, 2010;van Meel, Heslenfeld, Oosterlaan, & Sergeant, 2007). The second behavioral adjustment is an increase in attentional selectivity in conflict tasks, in which participants classify a target feature while ignoring a distractor feature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance monitoring and the causal attribution of errors

Steinhauser

Kiesel

2011

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the role of causal attribution for performance monitoring in the medial frontal cortex. To this end, we compared internally and externallycaused errors in a selective attention task with respect to error-related EEG activity and error-induced adjustments of speed and attentional selectivity. Both error types evoked early negativities and later positivities in the responselocked event-related potential. However, whereas internally-caused errors caused posterror slowing, externallycaused errors were followed by reduced attentional selectivity. Moreover, the amount of reduced attentional selectivity was related to the amplitude of the early negativity on externally-caused errors. This suggests that posterror adjustments are initiated on the basis of perceived causality and, thus, causal attribution of errors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance monitoring and the causal attribution of errors

Steinhauser

Kiesel

2011

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possible explanation would be that the two functions operate independently of each other. In line with this reasoning some investigators have found that the ERN and measures of post-error adaptation are not directly related (Castellar, Kühn, Fias, & Notebaert, 2010;Hajcak et al, 2003;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2001), while others found evidence to the contrary (Gehring et el., 1993). Further research will have to be conducted to shed more light on this matter in order to establish under which circumstances adaptive and regulative components of cognitive control are separate processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

Early error detection is generic, but subsequent adaption to errors is not: Evidence from ERPs

Dhar

2011

Neuropsychologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether error detection and subsequent regulatory processes could be influenced by pre-familiarisation with task-relevant stimulus features. To this end, nineteen healthy adults performed a speeded Go/NoGo task with compound targets, involving two concurrent stimulus attributes, which were either prefamiliarised or not, while high-density EEG was recorded. During the speeded Go/NoGo task, response errors clearly elicited an error-related negativity (ERN) and error positivity (Pe), but these error-related components were not modulated by familiarisation. By comparison, post-error adaptive processes were found to depend on familiarisation, as distinct topographic ERP effects were evidenced for familiarised vs. non-familiarised stimuli. Moreover, post-error slowing was abolished in the condition comprising familiarised attributes. These results suggest that prefamiliarisation with a stimulus property leaves unaffected error detection mechanisms, while altering subsequent adaptive processes. Whereas error detection mechanisms may be generic, the automatic adaptive processes consecutive to error detection may be malleable, and influenced by pre-familiarisation of stimulus features.

show abstract

“…In further support of the orienting account, PES is largest when errors are infrequent (Houtman et al, 2012;Notebaert et al, 2009). Also, postcorrect slowing is observed when correct responses are rare (Notebaert et al, 2009;Núñez Castellar, Kuhn, Fias, & Notebaert, 2010), and responses also slow after the unexpected presentation of task-irrelevant stimuli (Notebaert et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

False external feedback modulates posterror slowing and the f-P300: implications for theories of posterror adjustment

Saunders

Jentzsch

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People tend to slow down after mistakes. This posterror slowing (PES) has commonly been explained by a change to a more conservative response threshold to avoid future errors. Alternatively, the attention-orienting account posits that all infrequent, surprising events (including errors) elicit an orienting response followed by a time-consuming process of task reorientation, explaining PES without increased response caution. In the present study, we employed both behavioral and electrophysiological measures to compare the predictions of these accounts using a flanker paradigm in which accurate or false external response feedback was provided. Participants demonstrated typical posterror adjustments, responding more slowly and accurately in posterror than in postcorrect trials. This finding provides initial evidence suggesting that posterror adjustments are motivated by the avoidance of subsequent mistakes. Most importantly, PES and an event-related potential relating to the attentional processing of feedback, the feedback-related P300 (f-P300), were modulated by feedback type. More specifically, the f-P300 was larger after false than after accurate feedback, suggesting that participants oriented their attention toward (i.e., were surprised by) inaccurate feedback signals. Interestingly, false feedback differentially modulated reaction times: Participants were slower after correct responses when feedback falsely informed of an error rather than confirmed the correct response. In contrast, faster responses were made after errors when feedback falsely indicated correct rather than incorrect performance. When these patterns of results are regarded together, they are best explained by theories of cognitive control in which posterror adjustments in choice reaction time tasks are assumed to reflect control processes leading to more conservative performance after error signals.

show abstract

Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support

Cited by 119 publications

References 63 publications

Performance monitoring and the causal attribution of errors

Performance monitoring and the causal attribution of errors

Early error detection is generic, but subsequent adaption to errors is not: Evidence from ERPs

False external feedback modulates posterror slowing and the f-P300: implications for theories of posterror adjustment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About