Prospective issues for error detection

Abstract

From the literature on error detection, the authors select several concepts relating error detection mechanisms and prospective memory features. They emphasize the central role of intention in the classification of the errors into slips/lapses/mistakes, in the error handling process and in the usual distinction between action-based and outcome-based detection. Intention is again a core concept in their investigation of prospective memory theory, where they point out the contribution of intention retrievals, intention persistence and output monitoring in the individual's possibilities for detecting their errors. The involvement of the frontal lobes in prospective memory and in error detection is also analysed. From the chronology of a prospective memory task, the authors finally suggest a model for error detection also accounting for neural mechanisms highlighted by studies on error-related brain activity.

Error detection and correction patterns in dementia: A breakdown of error monitoring processes and their neuropsychological correlates

“…The ubiquitous and arguably inevitable nature of human error has resulted in a gradual change of focus in the everyday action and rehabilitation literatures. Researchers have acknowledged that eliminating errors may be unrealistic; improving error detection and correction may offer a more tenable strategy for facilitating everyday functioning in individuals with cognitive impairment (Blavier et al, 2005;Dehaene et al, 1994;Manly et al, 2002). The purpose of this study is to characterize everyday error detection and correction processes in dementia patients.…”

“…Auto-control processes are automatic physiological indicators that trigger error detection without conscious awareness or control. They occur in the earliest stages of error execution and lead to immediate correction in the majority of cases (90%) by healthy individuals (Blavier et al, 2005). Studies have shown that error detection is not disrupted or slowed by the diversion of attentional resources away from the task at hand in healthy controls Oomen & Postma, 2002;Postma, 2000); thus, there is evidence for automatic detection processes.…”

“…This form of correction may be triggered by autocontrol detection processes (described earlier). Various terms in the literature are used to refer to this rapid error detection0 correction (e.g., microslip, error sketch; covert repair) (Blavier et al, 2005;Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001;Postma & Kolk, 1993). A real world example of a microslip is stopping short of adding sugar, instead of coffee grinds, to a coffee maker in a cluttered kitchen.…”

“…Although novel, this study had at least two limitations. First, rapid error detection0correction (i.e., instances when patients begin to make an error but detect0correct the action before it is fully executed; hereafter microslips) (Blavier et al, 2005;Oomen & Postma, 2002) was not examined. Microslips occur frequently in healthy controls , but their frequency in dementia remains unknown.…”

Individual latent error detection and recovery in naval aircraft maintenance: introducing a proposal linking schema theory with a multi-process approach to human error research

“…Amalberti and Wioland (1997) showed errors made by highly trained operators (such as aircrew) can be frequent, yet most are either inconsequential or detected and corrected before leading to an undesired outcome. Blavier et al (2005) also found the number of execution errors increases significantly with task complexity but so does their detection whilst the number of planning errors and their detection are unaffected by complexity. These findings relate to proximal error detection, yet an operator can experience spontaneous belief that an error has occurred but be unsure of the nature of the error (Zapf and Reason 1994) and search for information about the past activity.…”