Evidence for aversive withdrawal response to own errors.

Recent model suggests that error detection gives rise to defensive motivation prompting protective behavior. Models of active avoidance behavior predict it should grow larger with threat imminence and avoidance. We hypothesized that in a task requiring left or right key strikes, error detection would drive an avoidance reflex manifested by rapid withdrawal of an erring finger growing larger with threat imminence and avoidance. In experiment 1, three groups differing by error-related threat imminence and avoidance performed a flanker task requiring left or right force sensitive-key strikes. As predicted, errors were followed by rapid force release growing faster with threat imminence and opportunity to evade threat. In experiment 2, we established a link between error key release time (KRT) and the subjective sense of inner-threat. In a simultaneous, multiple regression analysis of three error-related compensatory mechanisms (error KRT, flanker effect, error correction RT), only error KRT was significantly associated with increased compulsive checking tendencies. We propose that error response withdrawal reflects an error-withdrawal reflex.

Double dissociation of error inhibition and correction deficits after basal ganglia or dorsomedial frontal damage in humans.

Effective self-control relies on the rapid adjustment of inappropriate responses. Understanding the brain basis of these processes has the potential to inform neurobiological models of the many neuropsychiatric disorders that are marked by maladaptive responding. Research on error processing in particular has implicated the dorsomedial frontal lobe (DMF) and basal ganglia (BG) in error detection, inhibition and correction. However there is controversy regarding the specific contributions of these regions to each of these component processes. Here we examined the effects of lesions affecting DMF or BG on these error-related processes. A flanker task was used to induce errors that in turn led to spontaneous, online corrections, while response kinematics were measured with high spatiotemporal resolution. The acceleration of errors was initially greater than that of correct responses. Errors then showed slower acceleration compared to correct responses, consistent with engagement of inhibition shortly after error response onset. BG damage disproportionately disrupted this early inhibitory phenomenon, above and beyond effects on baseline motor performance, but did not affect the kinematics of the corrective response. DMF damage showed the opposite pattern, with relatively delayed onset and weaker initial acceleration of the corrective response, but error suppression kinematics similar to that of the control group. This work clarifies the component processes and neural substrates of online post-error control, providing evidence for dissociable contributions of BG to error inhibition, but not correction, and DMF to rapid error correction, but not error suppression.

Evidence for a role for the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex in disengaging from an incorrect action.

Adjusting for an error requires both disengaging from the wrong course of action and initiating a corrective response. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) has been implicated in both these processes in the decision-making and action monitoring literatures. Here, we aimed to distinguish between these putative functions with a variant of the Eriksen flanker task that manipulated response requirements (i.e. one or two finger responses). We found that two event-related potentials originating from the dACC (error-related negativity (ERN) and anterior N2) only reflected the representation of the incorrect response: these waveforms were larger when the incorrect response involved two fingers rather than one finger. The increase in ERN magnitude was also accompanied by a reduction in spontaneous error corrections. These results argue that activity in the dACC reflects a process involved in disengaging from an ongoing incorrect action, clearing the way for the correct response.

Toward a more sophisticated response representation in theories of medial frontal performance monitoring: The effects of motor similarity and motor asymmetries.

Cognitive control in the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) is formulated in models that emphasize adaptive behavior driven by a computation evaluating the degree of difference between 2 conflicting responses. These functions are manifested by an event-related brain potential component coined the error-related negativity (ERN). We hypothesized that the ERN represents a regulative rather than evaluative pMFC process, exerted over the error motor representation, expediting the execution of a corrective response. We manipulated the motor representations of the error and the correct response to varying degrees. The ERN was greater when 1) the error response was more potent than when the correct response was more potent, 2) more errors were committed, 3) fewer and slower corrections were observed, and 4) the error response shared fewer motor features with the correct response. In their current forms, several prominent models of the pMFC cannot be reconciled with these findings. We suggest that a prepotent, unintended error is prone to reach the manual motor processor responsible for response execution before a nonpotent, intended correct response. In this case, the correct response is a correction and its execution must wait until the error is aborted. The ERN may reflect pMFC activity that aimed to suppress the error.

Hemispheric integration is critical for intact error processing.

We provide for the first time direct clinical evidence for the critical role of hemispheric integration in intact error processing. We tested three patients with partial callosal disconnection. Two anterior patients could not correct their errors in a unilateral version of a visuomotor learning task for which they previously exhibited callosal disconnection, whereas, they corrected most of their errors in two visual matching tasks (comparing abstract shapes or faces) that they could transfer between the hemispheres. An opposite pattern emerged in a posterior patient. He could not correct his errors in unilateral versions of the same visual matching tasks, for which he previously exhibited callosal disconnection. However, he corrected most of his errors in the visuomotor learning task he was able to transfer between the hemispheres.

Source localization of error negativity: additional source for corrected errors.

Error processing in corrected and uncorrected errors was studied while participants responded to a target surrounded by flankers. Error-related negativity (ERN/NE) was stronger and appeared earlier in corrected errors than in uncorrected errors. ERN neural sources for each error type were analyzed using low-resolution electromagnetic tomography method of source localization. For corrected errors, the ERN source was located at the anterior cingulate (BA 24) and the medial and superior frontal regions (presupplementary motor area, BA 6), whereas it was located at the anterior cingulate (BA 24) for uncorrected errors. It is suggested that the anterior cingulate is the main source of the ERN with the presupplementary motor area contributing to ERN initiation only if the correct response tendency is sufficiently active to allow for full execution of a correction response.

Different laterality patterns of the error-related negativity in corrected and uncorrected errors.

While measuring event-related brain potentials, a divided visual field paradigm was used to discern laterality patterns of the error-related negativity (ERN) in healthy human participants. Two tasks of hemispheric specialty were used (bargraph judgement, lexical decision) and a flanker task. For corrected errors in all tasks, stronger ERN amplitude was found following right visual field presentation. For corrected errors in the specialised tasks, shorter ERN latency was revealed on the side to which the stimulus was presented, while for uncorrected errors it was shorter on the other side. In the flanker task, ERN latency after corrected errors was shorter over the RH regardless of the side to which the stimulus was presented. Results are interpreted to reveal patterns of hemispheric specialisation, independence, and cooperation in error detection that depend on the type of error been committed.

Do the hemispheres watch each other? Evidence for a between-hemispheres performance monitoring.

This study tested the hypothesis that when tasks are complex, response selection and performance monitoring are divided across the hemispheres, and when tasks are simple, response selection and error monitoring are done in the same hemisphere. Using a divided visual field paradigm, the authors presented a target and an interference stimulus, either to the same visual field or to different visual fields, and encouraged error correction. The interference stimulus was timed to interfere with posited error processing. Four tasks were used: bar graph identification, lexical decision, and complex and simple versions of the flankers task. The first three tasks revealed a pattern of contralateral interference, suggesting that error processing occurred in the hemisphere that did not process the initial target. The fourth task showed ipsilateral interference, suggesting that the same hemisphere processed the target and monitored itself. The authors conclude that the pattern of hemispheric cooperation in error processing is affected by task complexity.

Central interference in error processing.

This study dealt with capacity limitations in error processing. Participants classified digits into three arbitrary categories (initial response). Half were required to correct their errors if an error was detected (correction response), and half were required to produce a second response, regardless of the correctness of the initial response (approval response). Auditory interference was introduced before, during, or after the initial response. Interference stimuli were to be recalled later and were, thus, considered to involve central processes. Results for before showed that although correction responses were elongated, approval responses given after erroneous initial responses were shortened. For during, both correction and approval responses were elongated. On the basis of our findings, we argue that the error process is generated before the erroneous response is given and that it is a central process in terms of being subjected to capacity limitations in the presence of other central processes.

Does each hemisphere monitor the ongoing process in the contralateral one?

The present study was conducted to examine hemispheric division of labor in the initial processing and error monitoring in tasks for which hemispheric specialization exists. We used lexical decision as a left hemisphere task and bargraph judgment as a right hemisphere task, and manipulated cognitive load. Participants had to respond to one of two stimuli presented to both visual fields and were instructed to correct their errors. To achieve enough correctable errors, participants were encouraged to respond quickly by using a bonus system. The results showed the classical asymmetry for initial responses in both tasks and reversed asymmetry for corrections in the bargraph task at both load conditions, and in the lexical decision task at the high load condition. The results suggest that each hemisphere monitors the ongoing process in the contralateral one and that the dissociation of initial process and its monitoring grows with load of task.