Choice reaction performance following an error

Laming, Donald

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(79)90026-x

Cited by 238 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants showed post-error slowing when they failed to detect a nonthreatening face. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of post-error adjustments in a visual-search task, where response latencies are much longer than what is typically found in studies using choice reaction time tasks (Laming, 1979;Rabbitt, 1966), Simon tasks (Rigoni, Wilquin, Brass, & Burle, 2013), or Stroop tasks (Suárez-Pellicioni, Núñez-Peña, & Colomé, 2013). This result supports the hypothesis that sequential control adjustments impact performance for a prolonged time period (Cheyne, Carriere, Solman, & Smilek, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Post-error speeding is inconsistent with the idea that error reactivity necessarily leads to a more conservative response strategy (Laming, 1979), or with the idea that error reactivity only depends on an interference of error-monitoring on post-error processing (e.g., . Instead, the evidence of post-error speeding provided by the present study, together with other findings -such as the "affective privilege" of Reeck and Egner (2011) (i.e., the finding that task-irrelevant valent distractors interfere with task processing whereas taskirrelevant nonvalent distractors do not) -suggest that, in the presence of valent information, error reactivity is better characterized as a domain-specific process rather than as a domain-general effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Posterror speeding after threat-detection failure.

Caudek¹,

Ceccarini²,

Sica³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control enables individuals to rapidly adapt to changing task demands.To investigate error-driven adjustments in cognitive control, we considered performance changes in post-error trials, when participants performed a visual search task requiring to detect angry, happy, or neutral facial expressions in crowds of faces. We hypothesized that the failure to detect a potential threat (angry face) would prompt a different post-error adjustment than the failure to detect a nonthreatening target (happy or neutral face). Indeed, in three sets of experiments we found evidence of post-error speeding, in the first case, and of post-error slowing, in the second. Previous results indicate that a threatening stimulus can improve the efficiency of visual search. The results of the present study show that a similar effect can also be observed when participants fail to detect a threat.The impact of threat-detection failure on cognitive control, as revealed by the present study, suggests that post-error adjustments should be understood as the product of domain-specific mechanisms that are strongly influenced by affective information, rather than as the effect of a general-purpose error-monitoring system. 1

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Posterror speeding after threat-detection failure.

Caudek¹,

Ceccarini²,

Sica³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that controls make some behavioural adjustments when they have committed an error: they slow down their response speed on the next trial (post-error slowing; Rabbitt, 1966) and they improve their accuracy (Laming, 1979). With the current task we found no evidence of posterror slowing in any of the groups (see also Jonkman et al, 2007).…”

Section: Behavioural Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Voorde

Roeyers

Wiersema

2010

Biological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared children with ADHD, reading disorder (RD), ADHD+RD, and control children on behavioural (post-error slowing and post-error accuracy) and event-related potential (Ne and Pe) measures of error monitoring. Children with ADHD did not differ from children without ADHD in post-error slowing but showed less post-error accuracy enhancement, as evidenced by a higher proportion of double-errors. We found a smaller Ne but normal Pe amplitude in children with RD, and a smaller Pe but normal Ne amplitude in children with ADHD. Children from the comorbid group showed both a smaller Ne and a smaller Pe amplitude, which suggests that they showed the additive combination of the deficits found in both separate disorders. The results of the present study suggest that it might be important to control for the presence of comorbid RD when examining error monitoring in ADHD and that various measures of post-error adaptation should be included.

show abstract

“…The second explanation (i.e., a priori bias) is that people become negatively biased against the response option that was just executed in error (e.g., Laming, 1968Laming, , 1979bRabbitt & Rodgers, 1977). This implies that errors facilitate response alternations and hinder response repetitions, both with respect to response speed and probability of occurrence.…”

Section: Explanations For Post-error Slowingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 This question is just a valid as when it was first articulated by Rabbitt and Rodgers (1977) over 30 years ago. One answer to this question is that, after he has made an erroneous decision, a man slows down on his next decision-an empirical regularity known as post-error slowing (PES; Laming, 1968Laming, , 1979bLaming, , 1979aRabbitt, 1966Rabbitt, , 1979Rabbitt & Rodgers, 1977). However, this answer raises a new and more interesting question, namely, why does a man slow down after he makes an error?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Theories of Post-Error Slowing

Dutilh¹,

Vandekerckhove²,

Forstmann³

et al. 2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People tend to slow down after they make an error. This phenomenon, generally referred to as post-error slowing, has been hypothesized to reflect perceptual distraction, time wasted on irrelevant processes, a priori bias against the response made in error, increased variability in a priori bias, or an increase in response caution. Although the response caution interpretation has dominated the empirical literature, little research has attempted to test this interpretation in the context of a formal process model. Here we used the drift diffusion model to isolate and identify the psychological processes responsible for post-error slowing. In a lexical decision data set comprised of 1,094,886 responses we found that post-error slowing was associated with an increase in response caution and-to a lesser extent-a change in response bias. In the present data set, we found no evidence that post-error slowing is caused by perceptual distraction or time wasted on irrelevant processes. These results support a response monitoring account of post-error slowing.

show abstract

Choice reaction performance following an error

Cited by 238 publications

References 30 publications

Posterror speeding after threat-detection failure.

Posterror speeding after threat-detection failure.

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

Testing Theories of Post-Error Slowing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About