Unavoidable errors: A spatio-temporal analysis of time-course and neural sources of evoked potentials associated with error processing in a speeded task

Vocat, Roland; Pourtois, Gilles; Vuilleumier, Patrik

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.04.006

Cited by 171 publications

(248 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

219

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(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%

“…RCZ) to those reported in previous EEG studies which used GO-NOGO tasks, the same head model and the same source localization algorithm (Vocat et al, 2008;Koban et al, 2010;Vocat et al, 2011). Moreover, this region of the posterior medial frontal cortex (as evidenced with our source localization method) is also usually found in previous imaging studies focused on performance monitoring brain processes (Klein et al, 2007).…”

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

confidence: 77%

“…unspecific visual or motor effects), source localization analysis was carried out on the error-minuscorrect difference waveforms. 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).…”

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

Self Cite

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: 83%

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

confidence: 77%

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A calibration phase of 18 trials (12 G, 3 GNG, and 3 SNG) was presented before each block. The calibration enabled inducing additional time pressure and adjusting individually the difficulty of the task (see Manuel et al, 2012;Vocat et al, 2008 for similar procedures). During the calibration phase, the maximal response time threshold (mRTT) to the Go stimuli was determined.…”

Section: Procedures and Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early attentional processes distinguish selective from global motor inhibitory control: An electrical neuroimaging study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid stopping of specific parts of movements is frequently required in daily life. Yet, whether selective inhibitory control of movements is mediated by a specific neural pathway or by the combination between a global stopping of all ongoing motor activity followed by the re-initiation of task-relevant movements remains unclear. To address this question, we applied time-wise statistical analyses of the topography, global field power and electrical sources of the event-related potentials to the global vs selective inhibition stimuli presented during a Go/NoGo task. Participants (n = 18) had to respond as fast as possible with their two hands to Go stimuli and to withhold the response from the two hands (global inhibition condition, GNG) or from only one hand (selective inhibition condition, SNG) when specific NoGo stimuli were presented. Behaviorally, we replicated previous evidence for slower response times in the SNG than in the Go condition. Electrophysiologically, there were two distinct phases of event-related potentials modulations between the GNG and the SNG conditions. At 110-150 ms post-stimulus onset, there was a difference in the strength of the electric field without concomitant topographic modulation, indicating the differential engagement of statistically indistinguishable configurations of neural generators for selective and global inhibitory control. At 150-200 ms, there was topographic modulation, indicating the engagement of distinct brain networks. Source estimations localized these effects within bilateral temporo-parieto-occipital and within parieto-central networks, respectively. Our results suggest that while both types of motor inhibitory control depend on global stopping mechanisms, selective and global inhibition still differ quantitatively at early attention-related processing phases.

show abstract