Sequential adjustments before and after partial errors

Allain, Sonia; Burle, Borı́s; Hasbroucq, Thierry; Vidal, Franck

doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.356

Cited by 37 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, with consecutive presentation of word targets, the system appears to become increasingly efficient. In contrast, when a nonword target appears, the efficiency gains evident following a word target appear to be lost, a phenomenon that we suggest is comparable to the increased caution that contributes to post-error slowing (e.g., Allain et al 2009;Dutilh et al, 2012;Rabbitt, 1966Rabbitt, , 1989. We suggest that the presentation of a nonword target may interrupt the relatively smooth processing that develops when consecutive word targets are experienced and that adjustments to decision processes are made to reduce the possibility of an error.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

“…They suggested that the involvement of the nonlexical route might be adjusted dynamically as a low-contrast stimulus is encountered. This idea is quite plausible, given earlier demonstrations that response time is sensitive to recent trial history, such as slowing after commission of an error (e.g., Allain, Burle, Hasbroucq, & Vidal, 2009;Laming, 1979;Rabbitt, 1966Rabbitt, , 1989.…”

Section: Dynamic Adjustment Of Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history.

Masson

Kliegl

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive and interactive effects of word frequency, stimulus quality, and semantic priming have been used to test theoretical claims about the cognitive architecture of word-reading processes. Additive effects among these factors have been taken as evidence for discrete-stage models of word reading. We present evidence from linear mixed-model analyses applied to 2 lexical decision experiments indicating that apparent additive effects can be the product of aggregating over-and underadditive interaction effects that are modulated by recent trial history, particularly the lexical status and stimulus quality of the previous trial's target. Even a simple practice effect expressed as improved response speed across trials was powerfully modulated by the nature of the previous target item. These results suggest that additivity and interaction between factors may reflect trial-to-trial variation in stimulus representations and decision processes rather than fundamental differences in processing architecture.Keywords: additive and interactive effects, effects of trial history, lexical decision, linear mixed models Many formal models of word-reading processes assume the existence of separate processing modules that are responsible for computing different types of information (e.g., deriving orthography from visual input, computing phonology from orthographic patterns, selecting semantic information that corresponds to a presented word). A fundamental issue in the design of such models is the manner in which information is shared between the constituent modules. It is commonly assumed that input between processing modules is cascaded, so that partial information moves between modules even before a module has completed its operations (e.g., McClelland, 1979), and most current models of visual word identification include feedback from higher (e.g., lexical) to lower (e.g., letter) levels of processing (e.g., Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001;Perry, Ziegler, & Zorzi, 2007;Plaut & Booth, 2000).These architectural features play an important role in allowing computational models to simulate some fundamentally important behavioral results involving word-identification tasks and, in particular, interactions between independent variables that influence the speed with which words are identified. In word-identification tasks such as naming aloud or lexical decision, semantic priming of target words is enhanced if the targets are presented in a visually degraded form such as low contrast (e.g., Becker, 1979;Borowsky & Besner, 1991Stanovich & West, 1983). The typical form of this interaction is overadditive, whereby the influence of semantic priming is greater when performance is slowed by a lowcontrast stimulus. In general, an overadditive interaction is one in which the simultaneous influence of two independent variables is larger than what would be expected by a simple summation of their individual effects. For example, unrelated primes and low stimulus quality both slow responding relative to related primes and high...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Dynamic Adjustment Of Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history.

Masson

Kliegl

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, in studying adaptation effects after errors (e.g. Allain et al, 2009) the experimenter cannot control which specific trial does/does not involve conflict as it is not known in advance on which trials participants will commit an error.…”

Section: Determining Expectation (Mis)match Trial By Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expectation mismatch: Differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations

Gaschler

Schwager

Umbach

et al. 2014

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, behavioral results show the classical phenomenon of either pre-error speeding or post-error slowing, depending on the error type (Rabbitt, 1966;Allain et al, 2009;Danielmeier and Ullsperger, 2011).…”

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ermentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error detection is essential for monitoring performance and preparing subsequent behavioral adjustments, and is associated with specific neural responses in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). To investigate whether different brain mechanisms subserve the processing of commission vs. accuracy errors, we recorded EEG in adult participants while they performed a novel speeded GO-NOGO aiming task ("the Shoot-NoShoot paradigm"). Our ERP results show that commission errors (responding during NOGO trials) elicited a classical error-related negativity (ERN) component, followed by an error-related positivity (Pe), as well as a negativity peaking before response onset (pre-ERN). By contrast, spatial accuracy errors elicited a feedback-related negativity (FRN), which correlated with the spatial discrepancy between response and target position across subjects. Fast hits also elicited a pre-ERN but no ERN, suggesting that this pre-response monitoring component might be related to the detection of error likelihood. Although source analysis revealed similar generators in ACC for these different error-related negativities, the respective timing differed, suggesting that commission errors are detected rapidly based on internal motor representations, whereas the detection of accuracy errors in ACC relies on the additional and swift processing of external visual information.

show abstract

Sequential adjustments before and after partial errors

Cited by 37 publications

References 21 publications

Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history.

Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history.

Expectation mismatch: Differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About