The Neural Basis of Error Detection: Conflict Monitoring and the Error-Related Negativity.

Yeung, Nick; Botvinick, Matthew; Cohen, Jonathan D.

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.4.931

Cited by 1,614 publications

(1,253 citation statements)

References 118 publications

(468 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Grinband et al (2011b) have recently proposed that activation in medial frontal cortex can be accounted for by time on task, such that larger RTs correlate with more brain activity in this region. The time-on-task theory claims that this correlation challenges effects related to conflict (Botvinick et al, 2001;Yeung et al, 2004) and error likelihood (Brown & Braver, 2005). In the present study, switch blocks were associated with increased RTs and increased ERN and N2, a finding in line with the time-on-task account, given that these two ERPs are consistently localized to the ACC (Dehaene et al, 1994;van Veen & Carter, 2002).…”

Section: Alternative Accountssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…As noted above, visualand response-switching processes engage dissociable brain networks, such that the latter more consistently elicits ACC activity (e.g., Rushworth, Hadland, et al, 2002). Action-monitoring processes subserved by the ACC are primarily engaged at the response level, be it selecting among response options or monitoring for response conflict Holroyd & Coles, 2002;Ridderinkhof et al, 2004;Yeung et al, 2004). Therefore, although Tanaka (2009) and Ikeda and Hasegawa (2012) examined visual-switching effects on action monitoring, and Hsieh and Wu examined the neural correlates of response switching, no study to date has examined how the full gamut of neural and behavioral correlates of error and conflict monitoring are modulated by response switching.…”

Section: Relationships Between Action Monitoring and Task Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it is a stimulus-locked ERP component, the N2 has been consistently thought to reflect processes associated with responses, including response inhibition (Falkenstein, Hoormann, & Hohnsbein, 1999;Tillman & Wiens, 2011) and response conflict (Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004;Yeung & Cohen, 2006). The hypothetical mechanism that the N2 reflects is a process of controlling incorrect response preparation (see Folstein & Van Petten, 2008, for a review).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Performance errors are also associated with increased ACC activity (Carter et al, 1998;Holroyd et al, 2004) and have been at the heart of action-monitoring research and theory (Gehring, Liu, Orr, & Carp, 2012;Holroyd & Coles, 2002;Yeung et al, 2004). Electrophysiological studies have identified putative markers of ACC activity associated with errors, such as the error-related negativity (ERN; Gehring, Goss, Coles, Meyer, & Donchin, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

When the rules are reversed: Action-monitoring consequences of reversing stimulus–response mappings

Schroder

Moran

Moser

et al. 2012

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does switching tasks affect our ability to monitor and adapt our behavior? Largely independent lines of research have examined how individuals monitor their actions and adjust to errors, on the one hand, and how they are able to switch between two or more tasks, on the other. Few studies, however, have explored how these two aspects of cognitive-behavioral flexibility interact. That is, how individuals monitor their actions when task rules are switched remains unknown. The present study sought to address this question by examining the action-monitoring consequences of response switching-a form of task switching that involves switching the response that is associated with a particular stimulus. We recorded event-related brain potentials (ERPs) while participants performed a modified letter flanker task in which the stimulus-response (S-R) mappings were reversed between blocks. Specifically, we examined three ERPs-the N2, the error-related negativity (ERN), and the error positivity (Pe)-that have been closely associated with action monitoring. The findings revealed that S-R reversal blocks were associated with dynamic alterations of action-monitoring brain activity: the N2 and ERN were enhanced, whereas the Pe was reduced. Moreover, participants were less likely to adapt their posterror behavior in S-R reversal blocks. Taken together, these data suggest that response switching results in early enhancements of effortful control mechanisms (N2 and ERN) at the expense of reductions in later response evaluation processes (Pe). Thus, when rules change, our attempts at control are accompanied by less attention to our actions.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Accountssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Relationships Between Action Monitoring and Task Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When the rules are reversed: Action-monitoring consequences of reversing stimulus–response mappings

Schroder

Moran

Moser

et al. 2012

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is rather inconsistent with classical models of ERN-generation (e.g., Falkenstein et al, 1991;Gehring et al, 1993;Holroyd & Coles, 2002;Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004), which all predict higher performance monitoring related activity in the pMFC when performance is suboptimal.…”

Section: Task Performance Stagecontrasting

confidence: 46%

Face-induced expectancies influence neural mechanisms of performance monitoring

Osinsky

Seeger

Mussel

et al. 2015

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many daily situations, the consequences of our actions are predicted by cues that are often social in nature. For instance, seeing the face of an evaluator (e.g., a supervisor at work) may activate certain evaluative expectancies, depending on the history of prior encounters with that particular person. We investigated how such face-induced expectancies influence neurocognitive functions of performance monitoring. We recorded an electroencephalogram while participants completed a time-estimation task, during which they received performance feedback from a strict and a lenient evaluator. During each trial, participants first saw the evaluator's face before performing the task and, finally, receiving feedback. Therefore, faces could be used as predictive cues for the upcoming evaluation. We analyzed electrocortical signatures of performance monitoring at the stages of cue processing, task performance, and feedback reception. Our results indicate that, at the cue stage, seeing the strict evaluator's face results in an anticipatory preparation of fronto-medial monitoring mechanisms, as reflected by a sustained negative-going amplitude shift (i.e., the contingent negative variation). At the performance stage, face-induced expectancies of a strict evaluation rule led to increases of early performance monitoring signals (i.e., frontal-midline theta power). At the final stage of feedback reception, violations of outcome expectancies differentially affected the feedback-related negativity and frontalmidline theta power, pointing to a functional dissociation between these signatures. Altogether, our results indicate that evaluative expectancies induced by face-cues lead to adjustments of internal performance monitoring mechanisms at various stages of task processing.

show abstract