Errors and Action Monitoring: Errare Humanum Est Sed Corrigere Possibile

Abstract

It was recognized long ago by Seneca through his famous "errare humanum est." that the human information processing system is intrinsically fallible. What is newer is the fact that, at least in sensorimotor information processing realized under time pressure, errors are largely dealt with by several (psycho)physiological-specific mechanisms: prevention, detection, inhibition, correction, and, if these mechanisms finally fail, strategic behavioral adjustments following errors. In this article, we review several datasets from laboratory experiments, showing that the human information processing system is well equipped not only to detect and correct errors when they occur but also to detect, inhibit, and correct them even before they fully develop. We argue that these (psycho)physiological mechanisms are important to consider when the brain works in everyday settings in order to render work systems more resilient to human errors and, thus, safer.

Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring

“…A possible explanation for this might be that error detection in partial USST occurred earlier than in full USST to trigger correction of a wrong response. Moreover, since it takes about 20 ms for information to travel from the primary motor cortex to the hand muscles [ 29 ], the error detection in partial USST should have occurred before full USST by at least 20 ms. According to the early enhancement of theta and alpha in partial USST, we can infer that humans can detect their errors before or at the very beginning of execution of an erroneous response.…”

“…In addition to overt errors, partial errors have also been observed in the responses by using force measurement or recording the EMG activity [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. The occurrence of partial responses shows that participants are likely to also detect, inhibit and correct errors prior to producing full responses [ 28 , 29 ]. However, the dynamics of error-related neuro-markers in time-frequency domains that occur during partial error still remains unknown.…”

A Dissociation of Attention, Executive Function and Reaction to Difficulty: Development of the MindPulse Test, a Novel Digital Neuropsychological Test for Precise Quantification of Perceptual-Motor Decision-Making Processes

“…In our test, we can observe the average balance reached by a person, taking into account his/her speed, precision, errors (which influence an adjustment of the subject) and his/her reaction to difficulty. The notion of reaction to difficulty raises the question of whether it refers to the system of permanent adjustment to errors described by Vidal et al (2020) , or if it is an emotional reaction, or finally if the two phenomena work together.…”

“…This balance constantly adjusts a system to take errors into consideration. In sensorimotor activities performed under time pressure, the action monitoring system acts before, during, and after the action in order to take errors into account (Vidal et al, 2020). Hence, attentional processes underlie decision-making processes: being engaged in a cognitive task triggers a general maintenance of vigilance/alertness in order to achieve the fastest reaction time possible (Godefroy et al, 1999), and stimulus presentation regularly attracts attention.Processing speed is ecologically essential for adaptation to our environment.…”

Why Are Alzheimer’s Disease Patients Unaware of their Memory Deficits?

“…However, the precise characterization of the neural substrate of anosognosia is still unknown. Here, we hypothesized that anosognosia in AD may result from an inability to monitor ongoing behavior due to a failure in the error-monitoring system, which would normally signal the need for behavior adjustments to obtain an optimal performance 12,13 . Such impairment could also have adverse effects on global cognition by preventing subjects from learning from their own errors 14,15 .…”