Source localization (LORETA) of the error-related-negativity (ERN/Ne) and positivity (Pe)

Herrmann, Martin J.; Römmler, Josefine; Ehlis, Ann‐Christine; Heidrich, A.; Fallgatter, Andreas J.

doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.02.013

Cited by 380 publications

(339 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

294

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This method was primarily used as an indirect confirmatory analysis for the likely involvement of generic error monitoring brain systems involving the medial frontal cortex/RCZ in our study, whose latency mainly depends on the type of error being made. More generally, these source localization results appear consistent with earlier reports on error monitoring brain processes based on grand-average ERP data, as opposed to difference waveforms (e.g., Herrmann et al, 2004;Dhar et al, 2011).…”

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ersupporting

confidence: 91%

“…(Gehring et al, 1993;Gehring and Willoughby, 2002;Herrmann et al, 2004;Vocat et al, 2008;Koban et al, 2010;Dhar et al, 2011), we found sources in the dACC for the pre-ERN, the ERN, Pe, and the FRN component, supporting claims that these different components may all reflect shared reward prediction error signals or alternatively, conflict detection mechanisms (Botvinick et al, 2001;Botvinick, 2007). However, it is also plausible that they reflect the contribution of dACC within distinct functional networks activated at non-overlapping latencies before and following motor response (Mathalon et al, 2003).…”

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ersupporting

confidence: 83%

“…This method allows to estimate inverse solutions for action monitoring potentials, when unwanted activities (i.e., the motor execution stage involving motor cortex regions and the feedback processing stage involving visual cortex regions) common to all conditions have been removed from the analysis and hence do not strongly bias the outcome in any direction (either motor or visual cortex; see Yeung et al, 2004;Vocat et al, 2008;Koban et al, 2010 for similar approaches). We used a standard four-shell ellipsoidal head model approximation (Scherg, 1990) registered to human brain atlas of Talairach & Tournoux (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988), that has already been used in previous error monitoring ERP studies (Dehaene et al, 1994;Herrmann et al, 2004;O'Connell et al, 2007;Vocat et al, 2008;O'Connell et al, 2009). Similar to ERP mean amplitudes measures, we used time windows of -10 to +10 ms around each peak for dipole analysis.…”

Section: Source Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pe has been associated with the conscious detection of an error (Ridderinkhof et al, 2009;Steinhauser and Yeung, 2010;Dhar et al, 2011) and the engagement of remedial actions. Even though these ERP studies provide only indirect evidence regarding the actual involvement of specific brain structures during error monitoring, interestingly, the Pe component was also found to be generated in the ACC, though its sources were usually found either more rostral (van Veen and Carter, 2002;Herrmann et al, 2004;Shalgi et al, 2009), or more caudal (Falkenstein et al, 2000;Vocat et al, 2008), than the generators of the ERN in this medial frontal region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error detection is essential for monitoring performance and preparing subsequent behavioral adjustments, and is associated with specific neural responses in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). To investigate whether different brain mechanisms subserve the processing of commission vs. accuracy errors, we recorded EEG in adult participants while they performed a novel speeded GO-NOGO aiming task ("the Shoot-NoShoot paradigm"). Our ERP results show that commission errors (responding during NOGO trials) elicited a classical error-related negativity (ERN) component, followed by an error-related positivity (Pe), as well as a negativity peaking before response onset (pre-ERN). By contrast, spatial accuracy errors elicited a feedback-related negativity (FRN), which correlated with the spatial discrepancy between response and target position across subjects. Fast hits also elicited a pre-ERN but no ERN, suggesting that this pre-response monitoring component might be related to the detection of error likelihood. Although source analysis revealed similar generators in ACC for these different error-related negativities, the respective timing differed, suggesting that commission errors are detected rapidly based on internal motor representations, whereas the detection of accuracy errors in ACC relies on the additional and swift processing of external visual information.

show abstract

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ersupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Using This New Task We Show That Commission and Accuracy Ersupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Source Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that posterror slowing is linked indirectly to the ERN, or more directly to other error-related neural activity such as the Pe waveform. Although the Pe waveform has been localized to the rostral ACC region (Herrmann et al, 2004;Mathewson et al, 2005), other studies, including those that attempted to manipulate the awareness (or unawareness) of errors, have identified both prefrontal and parietal regions contributing to the Pe or error awareness (Brazdil et al, 2002;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2001). It appears increasingly likely that whereas certain regions are consistently linked with errorrelated neural activity, a network of regions is contributing to post-error processes such as response slowing and performance adaptation.…”

Section: Post-error Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Error Behavior in Active Cocaine Users: Poor Awareness of Errors in the Presence of Intact Performance Adjustments

Hester

Simões‐Franklin

Garavan

2007

Neuropsychopharmacol

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active cocaine abusers have a diminished neural response to errors, particularly in the anterior cingulate cortex thought critical to error processing. The inability to detect, or adjust performance following errors has been linked to clinical symptoms including the loss of insight and perseverative behavior. We investigated the cognitive implications of this diminished error-related activity, using response inhibition tasks that required error awareness and performance adaptation. Twenty-one active cocaine users (six female subjects, mean age ¼ 40.3) and 22 non-drug using adults (six female subjects, mean ¼ 39.9) participated. The results indicated that cocaine users consistently demonstrated poorer inhibitory control, a deficit accompanied by reduced awareness of errors. Adaptation of post-error reaction times did not differ between groups, although a different measure of adaptive behavior: exerting inhibitory control on the trial immediately after failing to inhibit, was significantly poorer in the cocaine using sample. In summary, cocaine users demonstrated a diminished capacity for monitoring their behavior, but were able to perform post-error adjustment to processes not already suffering an underlying deficit. These difficulties are consistent with previous reports of cocaine-related hypoactivity in the neural system underlying cognitive control, and highlight the potential for cognitive dysfunction to manifest as behavioral deficits that likely contribute to the maintenance of drug dependence.

show abstract

The Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Speech Production

McClain

Goldrick²

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of how a speaker produces meaningful utterances is a vital research topic in psychology and cognitive neuroscience, offering a window into not only language itself but also cognition more broadly. We review neurocognitive and behavioral evidence that supports a common set of principles for theories of the processes underlying speech production: independent levels of representation/processing; parallel activation and (limited) interaction; and structure‐sensitive selection and sequencing. We then examine the interaction between speech production and other domains of cognition, reviewing research on monitoring, executive control and attention, and the intention to communicate. This work reveals how production is highly integrated with other domains of cognition, suggesting a number of interesting avenues for future research.

show abstract

Source localization (LORETA) of the error-related-negativity (ERN/Ne) and positivity (Pe)

Cited by 380 publications

References 32 publications

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

Delayed monitoring of accuracy errors compared to commission errors in ACC

Post-Error Behavior in Active Cocaine Users: Poor Awareness of Errors in the Presence of Intact Performance Adjustments

The Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Speech Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About