2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neural signatures of adaptive post-error adjustments in visual search

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, multivariate analyses replicated the ERP results that had shown higher N2pc amplitudes (selection of target in a particular hemi-field) for exemplar than category face targets regardless of face species 23 . The present findings are also in accordance with previous reports using multivariate analyses of EEG data from a visual search task, showing that target location can be classified reliably based on the EEG signal from approximately 200 ms 24,32 . Here, we additionally show that target location can be more reliably classified from the multivariate EEG signal when the target is an exemplar than when the target is a category, regardless of target processing expertise (here, human or non-human face species).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, multivariate analyses replicated the ERP results that had shown higher N2pc amplitudes (selection of target in a particular hemi-field) for exemplar than category face targets regardless of face species 23 . The present findings are also in accordance with previous reports using multivariate analyses of EEG data from a visual search task, showing that target location can be classified reliably based on the EEG signal from approximately 200 ms 24,32 . Here, we additionally show that target location can be more reliably classified from the multivariate EEG signal when the target is an exemplar than when the target is a category, regardless of target processing expertise (here, human or non-human face species).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Building on this theoretical distinction, we posit that attentional selection of other-species targets might be preserved, but their identification might be impaired as a result of difficulties in the extraction or maintenance of task-specific representations in the early phases of visual search that precede attentional selection. Although visual search theories rest on the notion that working memory representations (i.e., attentional template) guide search 15 , studies have only very recently started investigating the content of representations during visual search via multivariate analyses 24,32 . Moreover, the majority of N2pc visual search studies to date have shown a strong correlation between N2pc latency and amplitude and behavioural performance 15 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given that task-relevant neural activation increases and decreases have previously been found in relation to post-error adaptations (King et al, 2010; Danielmeier et al, 2011; Steinhauser et al, 2017), this finding is not surprising.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…However, whether PES is indeed a beneficial process linked to a post-error improvement in accuracy in the sense of a speed-accuracy trade-off, as predicted by the cognitive control account (Laming, 1979; Bogacz et al, 2010), a by-product of a re-orienting process initiated by the error (Notebaert et al, 2009; Houtman and Notebaert, 2013), or a detrimental process reflecting capacity limitations in response monitoring (Jentzsch and Dudschig, 2009) is not clear (as discussed in reviews by Danielmeier and Ullsperger, 2011; Ullsperger et al, 2014). For instance, in a visual search task, Steinhauser et al (2017) found operation specific post-error adjustments in the same source as the faulty cognitive process, which lends support for cognitive (and thus adaptive) control processes playing a role post-error. And in a modified Stroop task, Hajcak et al (2003) found a relation between he duration of the PES and post-error accuracy, even after inter-trial intervals of up to 5 s. On the other hand, Notebaert et al (2009) observed that participants were slowing after both errors and corrects if these were infrequent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation