Short Article: Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing

Abstract

People often become slower in their performance after committing an error, which is usually explained by strategic control adjustments towards a more conservative response threshold. The present study tested an alternative hypothesis for explaining posterror slowing in terms of behavioural interferences resulting from error monitoring by manipulating stimulus contrast and categorization difficulty in a choice reaction time task. The response-stimulus interval (RSI) was either short or long, using a between-subject (Experiment 1) and a within-subject design (Experiment 2). Posterror slowing was larger and posterror accuracy lower in short than in long RSI situations. Effects of stimulus contrast disappeared in posterror trials when RSI was short. At long RSIs, stimulus contrast was additive with posterror slowing. The results support the idea that at least two mechanisms contribute to posterror slowing: a capacity-limited error-monitoring process with the strongest influence at short RSIs and a criterion adjustment mechanism at longer RSIs.

Error monitoring in children with ADHD or reading disorder: An event-related potential study

“…With the current task we found no evidence of posterror slowing in any of the groups (see also Jonkman et al, 2007). The presence and amount of post-error slowing might depend on the study paradigm or on specific task parameters such as the length of the interval between response and subsequent stimulus (Jentzsch & Dudschig, 2009). In our study, the absence of post-error slowing might be a consequence of the fact that the task instructions stressed response speed (to elicit sufficient errors in control subjects).…”

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

“…Some researchers have taken post-error slowing to reflect enhanced cognitive control, allowing for increased accuracy on the trial immediately following an error as a result of an augmented response threshold Brewer & Smith, 1984). Jentzsch and Dudschig (2009) postulated that post-error adaptation depends on the amount of time available for behavioural adjustments before the next trial. When the response-stimulus interval (RSI) is short, little time is available for central processing, causing a bottleneck and consequently posterror slowing, whereas when there is enough time to adjust behaviour before the next trial, posterror adaptation is more effective and responses are slow because they are more controlled.…”

Effects of Cell Phone Conversations on Driver Performance While Driving Under Highway Monotony

“…Overall results seem to suggest that after the wind gust event, participants were less erratic in their driving. This might indicate a possible return of attention to the driving task (Jentzsch, & Dudschig, 2009). Interestingly, during the second watch period, participants in the late conversation task did not show any significant changes in lane variability, as compared to participants in the other tasks.…”