Post-error slowing reflects the joint impact of adaptive and maladaptive processes during decision making

Abstract

Errors and their consequences are typically studied by investigating changes in decision speed and accuracy in trials that follow an error, commonly referred to as "post-error adjustments". Many studies have reported that subjects slow down following an error, a phenomenon called "post-error slowing" (PES). However, the functional significance of PES is still a matter of debate as it is not always adaptive. That is, it is not always associated with a gain in performance and can even occur with a decline in accuracy. Here, we hypothesized that the nature of PES is influenced by one's speed-accuracy tradeoff policy, which determines the overall level of choice accuracy in the task at hand. To test this hypothesis, we investigated post-error adjustments in subjects performing the same task while they were required to either emphasize speed (low accuracy) or cautiousness (high accuracy) in two distinct contexts (hasty and cautious contexts, respectively) experienced on separate days. Accordingly, our data indicate that post-error adjustments varied according to the context in which subjects performed the task, with PES being solely significant in the hasty context. In addition, we only observed a gain in performance after errors in a specific trial type, suggesting that post-error adjustments depend on a complex combination of processes that affect the speed of ensuing actions as well as the degree to which such PES comes with a gain in performance.

Impact of decision and action outcomes on subsequent decision and action behaviors

“…The most well-known post-outcome adjustment is a reduction of behavior speed after committing an error, namely post-error slowing (PES). PES is sometimes accompanied by changes in accuracy, although conditions leading to PES-related increase or decrease of accuracy are still unclear (Danielmeier & Ullsperger, 2011; Fievez et al, 2022). Notably, post-outcome adjustments have been mostly described as the effect of a choice on the decisional performance in the following trial (Dutilh et al, 2012; Laming, 1979; Rabbitt & Rodgers, 1977; Thura et al, 2017; Urai et al, 2019), but the influence of a movement outcome on the motor performance in the following trial did not receive the same attention (Ceccarini & Castiello, 2018).…”