No abstract

According to a recent theory, anterior cingulate cortex is sensitive to response conflict, the coactivation of mutually incompatible responses. The present research develops this theory to provide a new account of the error-related negativity (ERN), a scalp potential observed following errors. Connectionist simulations of response conflict in an attentional task demonstrated that the ERN-its timing and sensitivity to task parameters-can be explained in terms of the conflict theory. A new experiment confirmed predictions of this theory regarding the ERN and a second scalp potential, the N2, that is proposed to reflect conflict monitoring on correct response trials. Further analysis of the simulation data indicated that errors can be detected reliably on the basis of post-error conflict. It is concluded that the ERN can be explained in terms of response conflict and that monitoring for conflict may provide a simple mechanism for detecting errors.

Previous research has shown that two components of the event-related brain potential, the P300 and feedback negativity, are sensitive to information about rewards and penalties. The present study investigated the properties of these components in a simple gambling game that required participants to choose between cards that were unpredictably associated with monetary gains and losses of variable magnitude. The aim was to determine the sensitivity of each component to two critical features of reward stimuli: magnitude (small or large) and valence (win or loss). A double dissociation was observed, with the P300 sensitive to reward magnitude but insensitive to reward valence and the feedback negativity showing the opposite pattern, suggesting that these two fundamental features of rewarding stimuli are evaluated rapidly and separately in the human brain. Subsequent analyses provided additional evidence of functional dissociations between the feedback negativity and P300. First, the P300 (but not the feedback negativity) showed sensitivity to the reward value of alternative, nonselected stimuli. Second, individual differences in the amplitude of the feedback negativity correlated with individual differences in risk-taking behavior observed after monetary losses, whereas individual differences in P300 amplitude were related to behavioral adjustments observed in response to alternative, unchosen outcomes.

According to a recent theory, anterior cingulate cortex is sensitive to response conflict, the coactivation of mutually incompatible responses. The present research develops this theory to provide a new account of the error-related negativity (ERN), a scalp potential observed following errors. Connectionist simulations of response conflict in an attentional task demonstrated that the ERN--its timing and sensitivity to task parameters--can be explained in terms of the conflict theory. A new experiment confirmed predictions of this theory regarding the ERN and a second scalp potential, the N2, that is proposed to reflect conflict monitoring on correct response trials. Further analysis of the simulation data indicated that errors can be detected reliably on the basis of post-error conflict. It is concluded that the ERN can be explained in terms of response conflict and that monitoring for conflict may provide a simple mechanism for detecting errors.

People are capable of robust evaluations of their decisions: they are often aware of their mistakes even without explicit feedback, and report levels of confidence in their decisions that correlate with objective performance. These metacognitive abilities help people to avoid making the same mistakes twice, and to avoid overcommitting time or resources to decisions that are based on unreliable evidence. In this review, we consider progress in characterizing the neural and mechanistic basis of these related aspects of metacognition—confidence judgements and error monitoring—and identify crucial points of convergence between methods and theories in the two fields. This convergence suggests that common principles govern metacognitive judgements of confidence and accuracy; in particular, a shared reliance on post-decisional processing within the systems responsible for the initial decision. However, research in both fields has focused rather narrowly on simple, discrete decisions—reflecting the correspondingly restricted focus of current models of the decision process itself—raising doubts about the degree to which discovered principles will scale up to explain metacognitive evaluation of real-world decisions and actions that are fluid, temporally extended, and embedded in the broader context of evolving behavioural goals.