Punishment has a persistent effect on error-related brain activity in highly anxious individuals twenty-four hours after conditioning

Were we erring? The impact of worry and arousal on error‐related negativity in a non‐clinical sample

“…In contrast, anxious arousal is presumably not related to variability in action monitoring associated ERPs (Hajcak et al., 2003; Meyer et al., 2012; Moran et al., 2012; Moser et al, 2012, 2013; Weinberg et al., 2010) which is also suggested by our analyses that are underpinned by Bayesian statistics (Keysers et al., 2020). Even though the current null result with regard to the association of ERN and anxious apprehension contradicts several previous studies (Aarts & Pourtois, 2010; Hajcak et al., 2003; Lin et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2012; Moran et al., 2012; Moser et al., 2012), it adds to a growing number of reports suggesting that the relationship between anxious apprehension and ERN, particularly in subclinical samples, may be smaller or less robust than previously suggested (Moser et al., 2019; Riesel, Kathmann, Wüllhorst, Banica, & Weinberg, 2019; Saunders & Inzlicht, 2020). The following potential reasons should be considered when interpreting the current null‐results.…”

The association between parenting and the error-related negativity across childhood and adolescence

“…Empirical studies have implicated some of these environmental influences. For instance, punishment for errors on lab-based tasks (e.g., receiving an electrical shock after error commission) increases the magnitude of the ERN, and this effect may last for up to 24 h after punishment ends ( Meyer and Gawlowska, 2017 ; Riesel et al, 2019 , 2012 ). Hence, one crucial environmental factor that may impact the ERN is learning experiences surrounding error commission.…”

Cognitive control is quickly adapted to actual task requirements despite misleading context cues—Evidence from the N2, CRN, and ERN

“…Blockwise increase of conflict frequency results in reduced response times and error rates in incompatible trials in combination with increased N2 and reduced CRN amplitudes, indicating increased implementation of proactive stimulus‐locked cognitive control (Bartholow et al., 2005; Corballis & Gratton, 2003; Grutzmann et al., 2019; Grützmann, Riesel, et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2013; Kalanthroff et al., 2014; Wendt et al., 2008; Wendt & Luna‐Rodriguez, 2009). Previous studies have demonstrated that error monitoring can be influenced by context cues (Meyer & Gawlowska, 2017; Riesel, Kathmann, Wullhorst, et al., 2019; Riesel et al., 2012). These findings indicate that participants formed a task set which included the context cues and still guided behavior although initial acquisition conditions were no longer present.…”

“…Flexible adaptations to task requirements are also observed for error monitoring. Punishing errors, that is, by monetary loss (Endrass et al., 2010; Hajcak et al., 2005) or application of aversive stimuli (Meyer & Gawlowska, 2017; Riesel et al., 2012, 2019), lead to increased ERN amplitudes. Similarly, increasing error significance through social evaluation also increases ERN amplitudes (Hajcak et al., 2005).…”

“…It is based, among other things, on the individual's intentions and expectations regarding the task and contains strategic properties, such as the degree of cautiousness or impulsivity that should be applied. For example, when errors are being punished, participants will most likely increase the cautiousness of their response (i.e., respond more slowly) and upregulate performance monitoring (Meyer & Gawlowska, 2017; Riesel, Kathmann, Wullhorst, et al., 2019; Riesel et al., 2012). In the same line of thought, when conflict frequency is high, the most successful and economic strategy may be to inhibit the irrelevant, potentially conflict‐eliciting information continuously by recruiting proactive cognitive control (Desender & Van den Bussche, 2012).…”