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 had subjects performing a task in two distinct contexts (separate days), which either promoted speed (hasty context) or cautiousness (cautious context), allowing us to consider post-error adjustments according to whether subjects performed choices with a low or high accuracy level, respectively. 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 (low accuracy). 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 behaviours in humans

“…The post‐error slowing (PES) observed in Experiment 1 is a phenomenon commonly reported in the literature (Danielmeier & Ullsperger, 2011; Jentzsch & Dudschig, 2009; Laming, 1979; Purcell & Kiani, 2016; Rabbitt & Rodgers, 1977; Thura et al, 2017), even if post‐error speeding has been described as well (e.g., King et al, 2010). PES is often interpreted as an error‐induced increase in response caution that allows one to improve subsequent performance (Danielmeier & Ullsperger, 2011; Fievez et al, 2022). Interestingly, after a correct choice, subjects who performed Experiment 1 did not adjust their choice durations, but they committed with less sensory evidence.…”

“…The most well‐known post‐outcome adjustment is a reduction of behaviour speed after committing an error, namely, post‐error slowing (PES) (Dutilh et al, 2012; Rabbitt & Rodgers, 1977). 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).…”

Task goals shape the relationship between decision and movement speed

“…We used a variant of the Tokens task (Cisek et al, 2009;Thura et al, 2014) which has already been exploited in various ways in several past studies of our lab (Derosiere et al, 2019, 2022; Fievez et al, 2022) The current version of the task was implemented with Matlab 2016 (The Mathworks, Natick, Massachusetts, USA) and the Cogent 2000 toolbox (Functional Imaging Laboratory, Laboratory of Neurobiology and Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at the Welcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, London, UK).…”

“…We used a variant of the Tokens task (Cisek et al, 2009;Thura et al, 2014) which has already been exploited in various ways in several past studies of our lab (Derosiere et al, 2019Fievez et al, 2022) Each trial starts with an initiation phase during which participants have to perform a bilateral flexion of index fingers to signal their readiness. When index fingers return to their resting position, the 3 circles remain empty for a variable pre-decision period (150-300 ms).…”

Addressing complexity in motor learning: Practical strategies for teachers and coaches

“…It seeks to minimize prescriptive communication, favoring interrogative feedback. Instead of reprimanding, errors are celebrated as attempts to navigate toward effective solutions through the self-regulation of movement and strategic decision-making (Fievez, Derosiere, Verbruggen, & Duque, 2022). Embedded within this pedagogical transformation is an educational intervention that delineates a shift from traditional to nonlinear teaching episodes.…”