Fig 3 - uploaded by Robert Steinhauser
Content may be subject to copyright.
ERPs locked to the T1-response at posterior (A) and frontocentral (B) electrodes. Difference waves are computed from the respective T1 error minus T1 correct raw ERPs. Scalp topographies represent these difference waves. Gray areas indicate the time intervals for statistical testing for the Pe (A) and the Ne/ERN (B). T1 = Task 1. SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony.
Source publication
The concurrent execution of temporally overlapping tasks leads to considerable interference between the subtasks. This also impairs control processes associated with the detection of performance errors. In the present study, we investigated how the human brain adapts to this interference between task representations in such multitasking scenarios....
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... initially analyzed T1-response-locked ERPs to find out about immediate neural correlates of error processing after T1 errors. A distinct parietal positivity, the Pe, was clearly observable for both SOA conditions ( Fig 3 A). For an analysis of the Pe, we subjected mean amplitudes at electrode POz to a repeated measures ANOVA on the variables SOA (short vs. long) and T1 Correctness (correct vs. error). ...
Context 2
... vs. error). A Pe was evident across both SOA conditions, as indicated by a main effect of T1 Correctness, F (1, 23) = 28.6, p < .001, í µí¼ p 2 = 0.55, but a significant interaction revealed that this Pe was far less pronounced in trials with short SOA than in trials with long SOA, F (1, 23) = 11.0, p = .003, í µí¼ p 2 = 0.32. Raw ERP waves in Fig. 3 suggest that this interaction is mainly driven by a difference in the amplitudes of correct trials. This is likely caused by the fact that in most trials of the short SOA condition, the stimulus of T2 is presented and processed sometime within the time window observed here, eliciting stimulus-locked ERPs that are superimposed on the ...
Context 3
... trials, we correlated the difference wave of conditions correct long and correct short with the difference wave of the interaction term of the above analysis. We found no significant correlation, r = 0.14, p = .50, indicating that the Pe reduction in trials with short SOA is not a mere consequence of the amplitude difference in correct trials. Fig. 3 B shows that also a clear frontocentral Ne/ERN was observable in both SOA conditions. Indeed, subjecting mean amplitudes at electrode FCz to a repeated measures ANOVA of the same variables as above revealed that a significant Ne/ERN across both SOAs was obtained, F (1, 23) = 22.8, p < .001, í µí¼ p 2 = 0.50. In addition, a main effect ...
Citations
... Klawohn et al.[36] beobachteten eine Reduktion der ERN unter Doppelaufgaben, die sogar stärker ausfiel bei Patient*innen mit Zwangsstörung als bei gesunden Kontrollpersonen. Steinhauser und Steinhauser[37] fanden hingegen die ERN, im Gegensatz zur Pe, nicht moduliert durch eine überlappende Bearbeitung von 2 Aufgaben. Biases") beim feedbackbasierten Lernen in Verbindung gebracht[39]. ...
... A hypothesis concerning the nonadaptive consequences of error processing, such as posterror slowing, postulates that error processing can create a bottleneck for perceptual processing or memory updating functions required for subsequent tasks (Buzzell et al., 2017;Houtman & Notebaert, 2013;Lavro et al., 2018;Lavro & Berger, 2015;Van der Borght et al., 2016b). Interference may be trivial when two tasks overlap in time, similar to what happens in dual task situations, because control mechanisms either attenuate (Klawohn et al., 2016;Weißbecker-Klaus et al., 2016) or postpone (Steinhauser & Steinhauser, 2021) error monitoring. When there is no temporal overlap between subtasks, any existing adaptive mechanisms may not effectively mitigate interference caused by errors because erroneous response to the first task has the potential to trigger error monitoring processes even before the beginning of perceptual processing for the subsequent task. ...
Monitoring errors consumes limited cognitive resources and can disrupt subsequent task performance in multitasking scenarios. However, there is a dearth of empirical evidence concerning this interference with prospective estimation of time. In this study, we sought to investigate this issue through a serial multitasking experiment, employing a temporal bisection task as the primary task. We introduced two task contexts by implementing two different concurrent tasks. In one context, participants were tasked with discriminating the size difference between two visual items, while in the other context, they were required to judge the temporal order of similar visual items. The primary task remained the same for the entire experiment. Psychophysical metrics, including subjective bias (determined by the bisection point) and temporal sensitivity (measured by the Weber ratio), in addition to reaction time, remained unaltered in the primary task regardless of the perceptual context exerted by the concurrent tasks. However, commission of error in the concurrent tasks (i.e., non-specific errors) led to a right-ward shift in the bisection point, indicating underestimation of time after errors. Applying a drift-diffusion framework for temporal decision making, we observed alterations in the starting point and drift rate parameters, supporting the error-induced underestimation of time. The error-induced effects were all diminished with increasing a delay between the primary and concurrent task, indicating an adaptive response to errors at a trial level. Furthermore, the error-induced shift in the bisection point was diminished in the second half of the experiment, probably because of a decline in error significance and subsequent monitoring response. These findings indicate that non-specific errors impact the prospective estimation of time in multitasking scenarios, yet their effects can be alleviated through both local and global reallocation of cognitive resources from error processing to time processing.
... This negativity arises from the medial-frontal cortex (MFC) especially in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) [30][31][32], and it is evoked when participants commit a mistake in forced-choice speeded response paradigms. Commonly used tasks to elicit error brain responses include the flanker task [29,33,34], go/no-go task [35][36][37][38], and stroop task [39][40][41]. ...
Objective. The maintenance of balance is a complicated process in the human brain, which involves multisensory processing such as somatosensory and visual processing, motor planning and execution. It was shown that a specific cortical activity called perturbation-evoked potential (PEP) appears in the electroencephalogram (EEG) during balance perturbation. PEPs are primarily recognized by the N1 component with a negative peak localized in frontal and central regions. There has been a doubt in balance perturbation studies whether the N1 potential of perturbation is elicited due to error processing in the brain. The objective of this study is to test whether the brain perceives postural instability as a cognitive error by imposing two types of perturbations consisting of erroneous and correct perturbations. Approach. We conducted novel research to incorporate the experiment designs of both error and balance studies. To this end, participants encountered errors during balance perturbations at rare moments in the experiment. We induced errors by imposing perturbations to participants in the wrong directions and an erroneous perturbation was considered as a situation when the participant was exposed to an opposite direction of the expected/informed one. In correct perturbations, participants were tilted to the same direction, as they were informed. We analyzed the two conditions in time, time-frequency, and source domains. Main results. We showed that two error-related neural markers were derived from the EEG responses, including error positivity (Pe), and error-related alpha suppression (ERAS) during erroneous perturbations. Consequently, early neural correlates of perturbation cannot be interpreted as error-related responses. We discovered distinct patterns of conscious error processing; both Pe and ERAS are associated with conscious sensations of error. Significance. Our findings indicated that early cortical responses of balance perturbation are not associated with neural error processing of the brain, and errors induce distinct cortical responses that are distinguishable from brain dynamics of N1 potential.
... Therefore, they have been regarded as instances of a generic monitoring system detecting unexpected events (Band et al., 2009;Wessel et al., 2012). However, the integration of accumulated information seems to take place after this initial assessment of prediction errors (Kalfao glu et al., 2018;Steinhauser & Steinhauser, 2021;Steinhauser & Yeung, 2010;Ullsperger et al., 2014), supporting a hierarchical model of monitoring and thus, the observed independency. ...
To act successfully, agents must monitor whether their behavior reached predicted effects. As deviations from predicted effects can result from own behavior (response-errors) or from circumstantial unreliability (effect-errors), both the own efferent activities and the accomplished environmental outcomes must be monitored. In three experiments, we examined response monitoring and effect monitoring using a dual-task setup. Task 1 consisted of a three-choice flanker task and effects were displayed after the response. Crucially, in some of the trials, an incorrect effect was displayed after a correct response, whereas in other trials, a correct effect was displayed after an incorrect response. This disentangled response-errors and effect-errors. Task 2 was a simple discrimination task and served to measure the monitoring process. Task 2 responses slowed down after both response-errors and effect-errors in Task 1. These influences were additive, suggesting two independent monitoring processes: one for responses, capturing errors in efferent activities, and one for response effects, checking for environment-related irregularities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
