Rostral Cingulate Zone and correct response monitoring: ICA and source localization evidences for the unicity of correct- and error-negativities

Roger, Clémence; Bénar, Christian; Vidal, Franck; Hasbroucq, Thierry; Burle, Borı́s

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.005

Cited by 141 publications

(156 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hewig et al, 2011;Navarro-Cebrian & Kayser, 2013;Roger, Benar, Vidal, Hasbroucq, & Burle, 2010;Scheffers & Coles, 2000;Shalgi & Deouell, 2012;Wessel, Danielmeier, Morton, & Ullsperger, 2012), it contradicts the traditional view that ERN is related to implicit but not to explicit error awareness (e.g. Ehlis, Herrmann, Bernhard, & Fallgatter, 2005;Endrass et al, 2005Endrass et al, , 2007Hester, Foxe, Molholm, Shpaner, & Garavana, 2005;Hughes & Yeung, 2011;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2001;O'Connell et al, 2007;Overbeek et al, 2005;Steinhauser & Yeung, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Frontal theta band oscillations predict error correction and posterror slowing in typing.

Kalfaoğlu

Stafford

Milne

2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance errors are associated with robust behavioural and EEG effects. However, there is a debate about the nature of the relationship between these effects and implicit vs. explicit error awareness. Our aim was to study the relationship between error related electrophysiological effects, such as spectral perturbations in fronto-medial theta band oscillations (FMT), and error awareness in typing. Typing has an advantage as an experimental paradigm in that detected errors are quickly and habitually signalled by the participant using backspace, allowing separation of detected from undetected errors without interruption in behaviour. Typing is thought to be controlled hierarchically via inner and outer loops, which rely on different sources for error detection. Touch-typist participants were asked to copy-type 100 sentences as EEG was recorded in the absence of visual feedback. Continuous EEG data were analysed using independent component analysis (ICA). Time-frequency and ERP analyses were applied to emergent independent components. The results show that single-trial FMT parameters and Error Related Negativity (ERN) amplitude predict overt, adaptive post-error actions such as error correction via backspace; and, post-error slowing after errors, reflecting implicit error awareness. In addition, we found that those uncorrected errors which were slowed down the most were also the ones associated with a high level of FMT activity. Our results as a whole show that FMT are related to neural mechanism involved in explicit awareness of errors, and input from inner loop is sufficient for error correction in typing. Public SignificanceWe investigated the patterns of brain activity which precede errors and error-correction during skilled typing. This is interesting because it tests how theories of action and error-monitoring apply in a domain where actions are made extremely rapidly (up to ten keys per second). Electroencephalography (EEG) allows us to identify signature changes which have previously been associated with error-related processes in the brain. We showed that two of these signature patterns, the "error related negativity" (ERN) and "fronto-medial theta band oscillations" (FMT), both predict whether a typist is likely to notice and correct an error they make, as well as predicting how much typing slows down after an uncorrected error. The results support the idea -which has been contested -that the ERN reflects our explicit recognition that we have made a mistake.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Frontal theta band oscillations predict error correction and posterror slowing in typing.

Kalfaoğlu

Stafford

Milne

2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, because the dorsal ACC is usually considered to be the main generator of the ERN as well as the CRN component (see Roger, Bénar, Vidal, Hasbroucq, & Burle, 2010), while the SMA may be related to proactive behavioural adjustments (Hikosaka & Isoda, 2010;Ullsperger & King, 2010), our new ERP results (110-170 ms post-response onset) suggest that a prolonged CRN/action monitoring effect may be at stake in the non-familiarised condition. By contrast, in the familiarised condition, there is likely a rapid transition following response onset from dorsal ACC (CRN) to more dorsal frontal regions (including the SMA), consistent with the involvement of a differential proactive behavioural control mechanism when monitoring the adequacy of actions performed with pre-familiarised stimulus attributes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Early error detection is generic, but subsequent adaption to errors is not: Evidence from ERPs

Dhar

2011

Neuropsychologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether error detection and subsequent regulatory processes could be influenced by pre-familiarisation with task-relevant stimulus features. To this end, nineteen healthy adults performed a speeded Go/NoGo task with compound targets, involving two concurrent stimulus attributes, which were either prefamiliarised or not, while high-density EEG was recorded. During the speeded Go/NoGo task, response errors clearly elicited an error-related negativity (ERN) and error positivity (Pe), but these error-related components were not modulated by familiarisation. By comparison, post-error adaptive processes were found to depend on familiarisation, as distinct topographic ERP effects were evidenced for familiarised vs. non-familiarised stimuli. Moreover, post-error slowing was abolished in the condition comprising familiarised attributes. These results suggest that prefamiliarisation with a stimulus property leaves unaffected error detection mechanisms, while altering subsequent adaptive processes. Whereas error detection mechanisms may be generic, the automatic adaptive processes consecutive to error detection may be malleable, and influenced by pre-familiarisation of stimulus features.

show abstract

“…We used the cleaned, preprocessed EEG datasets and their respective ICA decompositions to employ automated IC identification based on the Compass algorithm (Wessel and Ullsperger, 2011). Our goal was to first identify ICs that explained a significant proportion of error-related activity in the EEG signal, and then to test whether these same ICs could also explain novelty-driven EEG deflections (for a similar logic, see Gentsch et al, 2009;Roger et al, 2010). For this, we computed difference waves between all error and all standard trials (novel trials were not included in this analysis).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surprise and Error: Common Neuronal Architecture for the Processing of Errors and Novelty

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to recent accounts, the processing of errors and generally infrequent, surprising (novel) events share a common neuroanatomical substrate. Direct empirical evidence for this common processing network in humans is, however, scarce. To test this hypothesis, we administered a hybrid error-monitoring/novelty-oddball task in which the frequency of novel, surprising trials was dynamically matched to the frequency of errors. Using scalp electroencephalographic recordings and event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we compared neural responses to errors with neural responses to novel events. In Experiment 1, independent component analysis of scalp ERP data revealed a common neural generator implicated in the generation of both the error-related negativity (ERN) and the novelty-related frontocentral N2. In Experiment 2, this pattern was confirmed by a conjunction analysis of event-related fMRI, which showed significantly elevated BOLD activity following both types of trials in the posterior medial frontal cortex, including the anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC), the neuronal generator of the ERN. Together, these findings provide direct evidence of a common neural system underlying the processing of errors and novel events. This appears to be at odds with prominent theories of the ERN and aMCC. In particular, the reinforcement learning theory of the ERN may need to be modified because it may not suffice as a fully integrative model of aMCC function. Whenever course and outcome of an action violates expectancies (not necessarily related to reward), the aMCC seems to be engaged in evaluating the necessity of behavioral adaptation.

show abstract

Rostral Cingulate Zone and correct response monitoring: ICA and source localization evidences for the unicity of correct- and error-negativities

Cited by 141 publications

References 53 publications

Frontal theta band oscillations predict error correction and posterror slowing in typing.

Frontal theta band oscillations predict error correction and posterror slowing in typing.

Early error detection is generic, but subsequent adaption to errors is not: Evidence from ERPs

Surprise and Error: Common Neuronal Architecture for the Processing of Errors and Novelty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About