Performance Monitoring in the Anterior Cingulate is Not All Error Related: Expectancy Deviation and the Representation of Action-Outcome Associations

Abstract

Several converging lines of evidence suggest that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is selectively involved in error detection or evaluation of poor performance. Here we challenge this notion by presenting event-related potential (ERP) evidence that the feedback-elicited error-related negativity, an ERP component attributed to the ACC, can be elicited by positive feedback when a person is expecting negative feedback and vice versa. These results suggest that performance monitoring in the ACC is not limited to error processing. We propose that the ACC acts as part of a more general performance-monitoring system that is activated by violations in expectancy. Further, we propose that the common observation of increased ACC activity elicited by negative events could be explained by an overoptimistic bias in generating expectations of performance. These results could shed light into neurobehavioral disorders, such as depression and mania, associated with alterations in performance monitoring and also in judgments of self-related events.

The interplay between feedback-related negativity and individual differences in altruistic punishment: An EEG study

“…In the present context, this is particularly true for the so-called feedback-related negativity (FRN; also referred to as medial frontal negativity, or MFN) that is elicited around 250-300 ms after individuals obtained feedback about outcomes that are worse than expected (Holroyd & Krigolson, 2007) or received feedback about negative performance (Holroyd & Coles, 2002;Miltner, Braun, & Coles, 1997). Furthermore, more recent findings indicate that an FRN is elicited even when feedback is surprising or unexpected regardless of the affective valence of feedback (Hauser et al, 2014;Oliveira, McDonald, & Goodman, 2007). Moreover, recent studies show that by observing feedback on another person's decisions or actions an observer FRN is evoked (e.g., Fukushima & Hiraki, 2009;Yu & Zhou, 2006; see also Koban & Pourtois, 2014) demonstrating that the FRN can be measured reliably in a third person condition.…”

Face-induced expectancies influence neural mechanisms of performance monitoring

“…Some of these studies indicate that FRN amplitude varies with the degree of signed RPEs (i.e., more negative FRN amplitude when the outcome is worse than expected and/or more positive FRN amplitude when the outcome is better than expected; e.g., Bellebaum & Daum, 2008;Chase et al, 2011;Hewig et al, 2007;Martin & Potts, 2011;Xu et al, 2011). However, other studies rather point to an association between FRN and unsigned RPEs (i.e., generally more negative FRN when the outcome is other than expected; e.g., Hauser et al, 2014;Mas-Herrero & MarcoPallarés, 2014;Pfabigan et al, 2011;Wu & Zhou, 2009;also, see Ferdinand, Mecklinger, Kray, & Gehring, 2012;Oliveira, McDonald, & Goodman, 2007;Osinsky, Mussel, & Hewig, 2012).…”

Threat and Defense

“…The ACC is positioned in the medial or inner part of the frontal lobe of the brain surrounding the anterior corpus callosum. 4 The ACC is activated by various discrepancies, such as errors, conflicts, surprises (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001;Egner, 2011;Oliveira, McDonald, & Goodman, 2007;Ridderinkhof, Ullsperger, Crone, & Nieuwenhuis, 2004;Shackman et al, 2011;Stevens, Hurley, & Taber, 2011), and various other threats (as will be discussed below), and interacts with other brain areas to monitor and manage those conflicts and discrepancies (e.g., Botvinick et al, 2001;Bush, Luu, & Posner, 2000;Carter et al, 1998;Ridderinkhof et al, 2004;Shackman et al, 2011).…”