Fig 3 - uploaded by Inti A. Brazil
Content may be subject to copyright.
(a) Grand-average difference waves for each error type at electrode Fz, time-locked to feedback onset, and the current source density of the grand-average difference wave within the time window of analysis of the P3a. (b) Grand-average difference waves for each error type at electrode Pz, time-locked to feedback onset, and the current source density of the grand-average difference wave within the time window of analysis of the P3b. (c) Mean amplitudes for each error type by location and time interval. 

(a) Grand-average difference waves for each error type at electrode Fz, time-locked to feedback onset, and the current source density of the grand-average difference wave within the time window of analysis of the P3a. (b) Grand-average difference waves for each error type at electrode Pz, time-locked to feedback onset, and the current source density of the grand-average difference wave within the time window of analysis of the P3b. (c) Mean amplitudes for each error type by location and time interval. 

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
People often coordinate their actions with others' in pursuit of shared goals, yet little research has examined the neural processes by which people monitor whether shared goals have been achieved. The current study compared event-related potentials elicited by feedback indicating joint errors (resulting from two people's coordinated actions) and i...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... difference wave from 360 to 390 ms after feedback onset at electrodes Fz, FC1, and FC2. The P3b was defined as the mean amplitude from 430 to 560 ms after feedback onset at electrodes Pz, CP1, and CP2. Electrode sites were chosen based on previous studies on the P3a and P3b and the locations of their maximal amplitudes in the current study (see Fig. 3). To confirm that the two subcomponents had distinct time windows and scalp distributions, we compared the mean amplitudes with a 2 (interval: early [ Finally, we checked for attentional effects by examining the pos- terior P1 and N1 components evoked by the feedback stimulus, as the amplitudes of these components depend on the level ...
Context 2
... t(20) = 2.77, p = 0.012, and compared to observed errors, t(20) = 5.34, p < 0.001. FRN amplitudes were also significantly larger for joint errors compared to observed errors, t(20) = 5.13, p < 0.001. There were no differences in the latencies of the FRN peak or the preceding positive peak by error type (see Supplementary material for details). Fig. 3 shows the mean P3 amplitudes elicited by each error type at each combination of location and time interval. The ANOVA on mean amplitudes showed a significant location by interval interac- tion, F(1, 20) = 40.69, p < 0.001, such that mean amplitudes were larger at frontocentral compared to parietocentral sites for the early interval, ...
Context 3
... ANOVA on P3a amplitudes confirmed a main effect of loca- tion, F(1, 20) = 10.34, p = 0.004, such that mean amplitudes were larger at frontocentral than parietocentral sites. The ANOVA also revealed a main effect of error type, F(2, 40) = 5.95, p = 0.005, and an error type by location interaction, F(2, 40) = 9.12, p = 0.001. The left panel of Fig. 3c shows that at frontocentral sites, where the P3a was maximal, own errors elicited larger amplitudes compared to joint errors, t(20) = 2.67, p = 0.015, and compared to observed errors, t(20) = 3.99, p = 0.001, whereas amplitudes elicited by joint and observed errors did not differ, t(20) = 1.17, p = 0.26. At parieto- central sites, ...

Citations

... The amplitude of the FRN is generally larger following negative relative to positive outcomes, but it is also modulated by motivational significance. For example, one study found that the amplitude of the FRN increased as the level of personal relevance of the outcomes increased during joint action (Loehr, Kourtis, & Brazil, 2015). As such, the FRN could provide information on whether associative learning deficits in psychopathy stem from deficient coding of outcome value. ...
Article
Full-text available
Psychopathic individuals typically present with associative learning impairments under explicit learning conditions. The present study aimed to investigate whether the formation of stimulus-outcome associations, as well as updating of these associations after changed contingencies, could be improved by using rewards with sufficiently high subjective values. To this end, 20 psychopathic offenders, 17 non-psychopathic offenders and 18 healthy controls performed a passive avoidance task with a reversal phase under three motivational conditions, using naturalistic rewards. The subjective values of the rewards were assessed a priori for each individual participant using a visual analogue scale. The correspondence of these values to their internal representation was confirmed by analyses of brain potentials. Analyses using both signal detection theory and classical approaches indicated that psychopathic offenders performed worse compared to the other groups during passive avoidance learning. However, using the signal detection approach, we found this deficiency to be present only when a hypothetical reward was used (‘neutral reward’ condition), whereas psychopathic offenders performed similar to the other groups when naturalistic rewards could be obtained (‘low reward’ and ‘high reward’ conditions). Furthermore, traditional analyses suggested that psychopathic offenders had more hits than the other groups during reversal learning, but the signal detection approach indicated that no effects of group or condition were present. Analysis of win-stay and lose-shift behaviour showed that psychopathic offenders were less likely to stay with a rewarded response during passive avoidance learning in the neutral reward condition. In addition, regardless of experimental phase or condition, psychopathic offenders were less likely to stop responding to a particular stimulus after receiving negative feedback. Although the approaches employed did not lead to unequivocal results, our findings suggest that psychopathic offenders do have the ability to adapt their behaviour to environmental contingencies when positive reinforcers with sufficiently high subjective values are used.
... Following the extensive research in the cognitive domain, research in the motor domain has began to examine the occurrence and functional relevance of the FRN components for feedback processing in motor learning (e.g., discrete arm-movement sequence: Krause et al., 2020; key-press sequence: Loehr et al., 2015;goal-directed throwing: Fro¨mer et al., 2016;Joch et al., 2017Joch et al., , 2018Maurer et al., 2019;goal-directed pointing: Colino et al., 2020;Reuter et al., 2018;postural-control task: Torrecillos et al., 2014). Notably, none of these studies integrated more than one session of practice or more than one EEG-recording. ...
Article
Several event-related potentials (ERPs) are associated with the processing of valence-dependent augmented feedback during the practice of motor tasks. In this study, 38 students learned a sequential arm-movement-task with 192 trials in each of five practice sessions (960 practice trials in total), to examine practice-related changes in neural feedback processing. Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded in the first and last practice session. An adaptive bandwidth for movement accuracy led to equal amounts of positive and negative feedback. A frontal located negative deflection in the time window of the feedback-related negativity (FRN) was more negative for negative feedback and might reflect reward prediction errors in reinforcement learning. This negativity increased after extensive practice, which might indicate that smaller errors are harder to identify in the later phase. The late fronto-central positivity (LFCP) was more positive for negative feedback and is assumed to be associated with supervised learning and behavioral adaptations based on feedback with higher complexity. No practice-related changes of the LFCP were observed, which suggests that complex feedback is processed independent from the practice phase. The P300 displayed a more positive activation for positive feedback, which might be interpreted as the higher significance of positive feedback for the updating of internal models in this setting. A valence-independent increase of the P300 amplitude after practice might reflect an improved ability to update the internal representation based on feedback information. These results demonstrate that valence-dependent neural feedback processing changes with extensive practice of a novel motor task. Dissociating changes in latencies of different components support the assumption that they are related to distinct mechanisms of feedback-dependent learning.
... The FRN peaks around 250 ms after feedback onset and is elicited upon error confirmation that is only verifiable through information about the action outcome, regardless of who performed the action (Gehring, Liu, Orr, & Carp, 2012;Miltner, Braun, & Coles, 1997). Thus, the perception of an error committed by another individual, which can occur during passive action observation or during joint action tasks, elicits the FRN (Loehr, Kourtis, & Brazil, 2015;Nieuwenhuis, Holroyd, Mol, & Coles, 2004). Additionally, in cooperative task Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/scan/advance-article/doi/10.1093/scan/nsab019/6132337 by guest on 11 February 2021 contexts, co-actors slow their behavioural responses after errors regardless of who committed them (de Bruijn, Mars, Bekkering, & Coles, 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
During joint action, the sense of agency enables interaction partners to implement corrective and adaptive behaviour in response to performance errors. When agency becomes ambiguous (e.g., when action similarity encourages perceptual self-other overlap), confusion as to who produced what may disrupt this process. The current experiment investigated how ambiguity of agency affects behavioural and neural responses to errors in a joint action domain where self-other overlap is common: musical duos. Pairs of pianists performed piano pieces in synchrony, either playing the same pitches (ambiguous agency) or different pitches (unambiguous agency) while EEG was recorded from each individual. Behavioural and event-related potential (ERP) results showed no effects of the agency manipulation, but revealed differences in how distinct error types are processed. Self-produced “wrong note” errors (substitutions) were left uncorrected, showed post-error slowing, and elicited an error-related negativity peaking before erroneous keystrokes (pre-ERN). By contrast, self-produced “extra note” errors (additions) exhibited pre-error slowing, error and post-error speeding, were rapidly corrected, and elicited the ERN. Other-produced errors evoked a feedback-related negativity (FRN) but no behavioural effects. Overall findings shed light upon how the nervous system supports fluent interpersonal coordination in real-time joint action by employing distinct mechanisms to manage different types of errors.
... Accordingly, having a playbook in mind would trigger specific expectations of the team-mates' upcoming behavior. This interpretation would be in line with our and others' suggestion that one's and the partner's actions are integrated within a dyadic motor plan (DMP 15,16 , Fig. 1b), resembling what happens for left-and right-hand movements during bimanual coordination [17][18][19][20] . The agents would then apply similar sensorimotor control processes to both their own and their partner's actions 12,13 . ...
Article
Full-text available
What is the key to successful interaction? Is it sufficient to represent a common goal, or does the way our partner achieves that goal count as well? How do we react when our partner misbehaves? We used a turn-taking music-like task requiring participants to play sequences of notes together with a partner, and we investigated how people adapt to a partner’s error that violates their expectations. Errors consisted of either playing a wrong note of a sequence that the agents were playing together (thus preventing the achievement of the joint goal) or playing the expected note with an unexpected action. In both cases, we found post-error slowing and inaccuracy suggesting the participants’ implicit tendency to correct the partner’s error and produce the action that the partner should have done. We argue that these “joint” monitoring processes depend on the motor predictions made within a (dyadic) motor plan and may represent a basic mechanism for mutual support in motor interactions.
... More specifically, pianists were more synchronized and showed greater adaptation in conditions in which performers received auditory feedback from the co-performer. These findings have been corroborated and expanded by studies investigating ensemble synchrony in duets (Bishop & Goebl, 2015;Loehr, Kourtis, & Brazil, 2015;Zamm, Pfordresher, & Palmer, 2014) and string quartet performance (Timmers, Endo, Bradbury, & Wing, 2014;Wing, Endo, Bradbury, & Vorberg, 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Musical performance involves the production of highly accurate sequences of movements in space and time. During a performance, real-time auditory, visual, somatosensory (tactile and kinematic), and movement-related information of the outcome of an action provided within the different sensory systems is integrated into a coherent percept and fed back to the motor system. These sensory feedback mechanisms are, therefore, crucial to maintaining the fluency of production. However, how and to what extent do these feedback mechanisms influence music performance and learning? A growing area of research has investigated the role of different types of sensory feedback on the musicians’ performance. The aim of this integrative review is to overview the recent literature on the role of sensory feedback on music performance, focusing particularly on the individual interaction between musician and instrument. In the first section, we review recent findings regarding the role of auditory, visual, and somatosensory (tactile and kinesthetic) feedback on music performance considering each sensory modality separately. To finalize, we briefly discuss the implications of these findings to support learning and pedagogical practice.
... Similarly, other studies have investigated the occurrence of ERN and Pe responses during interpersonal musical performance in turn taking setups (Huberth et al., 2018;Maidhof, Vavatzanidis, Prinz, Rieger, & Koelsch, 2010). One EEG study demonstrates that performing errors together with a partner modulates neural activity related to outcome evaluation (i.e., the Feedback-Related Negativity is larger for joint errors compared to other's ones) but has less impact on activity related to the motivation to adapt future behaviour (i.e., P3b is not modulated by own, joint or other's errors; Loehr, Kourtis, & Brazil, 2015). This suggests that producing a phasic error by pressing the wrong key synchronously with a partner impacts outcome evaluation response rather than generating neural responses associated to adaptive behaviour. ...
Article
Discrepancies between sensory predictions and action outcome are at the base of error coding. However, these phenomena have mainly been studied focussing on individual performance. Here, we explored EEG responses to motor prediction errors during a human-avatar interaction and show that Theta/Alpha activity of the frontal error-monitoring system works in phase with activity of the occipito-temporal node of the action observation network. Our motor interaction paradigm required healthy individuals to synchronize their reach-to-grasp movements with those of a virtual partner in conditions that did (Interactive) or did not require (Cued) movement prediction and adaptation to the partner's actions. Crucially, in 30% of the trials the virtual partner suddenly and unpredictably changed its movement trajectory thereby violating the human participant's expectation. These changes elicited error-related neuromarkers (ERN/Pe - Theta/Alpha modulations) over fronto-central electrodes during the Interactive condition. Source localization and connectivity analyses showed that the frontal Theta/Alpha activity induced by violations of the expected interactive movements was in phase with occipito-temporal Theta/Alpha activity. These results expand current knowledge about the neural correlates of on-line interpersonal motor interactions linking the frontal error-monitoring system to visual, body motion-related, responses.
... In contrast, when people work alone, the FRN amplitude associated with losing rewards is greater than the FRN amplitude associated with gaining rewards. These authors explained that cooperation reduces the emotional value of losing rewards, leading to a decreased FRN amplitude (Yeung et al., 2005;Loehr et al., 2015;Kimura and Katayama, 2016). ...
... In their study, participants were able to realize their own mistakes without feedback, which elicited the ERN, while mistakes of a partner had to be inferred from visual feedback, which elicited the FRN (Picton et al., 2012). In an even more naturalistic set-up, Loehr and colleagues tested piano duets (Loehr et al., 2013(Loehr et al., , 2015. Such a music paradigm allowed for a clear division between one's own, other's and joint errors. ...
... Results of both Picton et al's and Loehr et al's experiments confirmed that the FRN monitors both one's own and other's errors in joint situations. Interestingly, the FRN is stronger for one's own than joint mistakes, and stronger for joint mistakes than others' mistakes (Loehr et al., 2015). These studies focused on the monitoring of actions in cooperative joint set-ups. ...
... Namely, we found a main effect of the outcome and social situation in both the LMM and the permutation analysis, further corroborating earlier results that the FRN is sensitive to positive and negative outcomes and the social situation (Ullsperger et al., 2014). In addition, our exploratory analysis showed that these differences for the FRN preceded the time window typically defined for the FRN, suggesting that the human brain differentiates the valence of the outcome and the social situation earlier than previously suggested (Koban et al., 2010;Marco-Pallarés et al., 2010;Rigoni et al., 2010;de Bruijn and von Rhein, 2012;Picton et al., 2012;Loehr et al., 2013Loehr et al., , 2015. Our results (Figure 5, second row), suggest that there are stronger positive activation in cooperative than competitive situation in two stages of processing of the feedback. ...
Article
Full-text available
Humans achieve their goals in joint action tasks either by cooperation or competition. In the present study, we investigated the neural processes underpinning error and monetary rewards processing in such cooperative and competitive situations. We used electroencephalography (EEG) and analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) triggered by feedback in both social situations. 26 dyads performed a joint four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) visual task either cooperatively or competitively. At the end of each trial, participants received performance feedback about their individual and joint errors and accompanying monetary rewards. Furthermore, the outcome, i.e., resulting positive, negative, or neutral rewards, was dependent on the pay-off matrix, defining the social situation either as cooperative or competitive. We used linear mixed effects models to analyze the feedback-related-negativity (FRN) and used the Threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE) method to explore activations of all electrodes and times. We found main effects of the outcome and social situation, but no interaction at mid-line frontal electrodes. The FRN was more negative for losses than wins in both social situations. However, the FRN amplitudes differed between social situations. Moreover, we compared monetary with neutral outcomes in both social situations. Our exploratory TFCE analysis revealed that processing of feedback differs between cooperative and competitive situations at right temporo-parietal electrodes where the cooperative situation elicited more positive amplitudes. Further, the differences induced by the social situations were stronger in participants with higher scores on a perspective taking test. In sum, our results replicate previous studies about the FRN and extend them by comparing neurophysiological responses to positive and negative outcomes in a task that simultaneously engages two participants in competitive and cooperative situations.
... In their study, participants were able to realize their own mistakes without feedback, which elicited the ERN, while mistakes of a partner had to be inferred from visual feedback, which elicited the FRN (14). In an even more naturalistic set-up, Loehr and colleagues tested piano duets (15,16). Such a music paradigm allowed for a clear division between one's own, other's and joint errors. ...
... Results of both Picton et al's and Loehr et al's experiments confirmed that the FRN monitors both one's own and other's errors in joint situations. Interestingly, the FRN is stronger for one's own than joint mistakes, and stronger for joint mistakes than others' mistakes (16). These studies focused on the monitoring of actions in cooperative joint set-ups. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Humans achieve their goals in joint action tasks either by cooperation or competition. In the present study, we investigated the neural processes underpinning error and monetary rewards processing in such cooperative and competitive situations. We used electroencephalography (EEG) and analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) triggered by feedback in both social situations. 26 dyads performed a joint four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) visual task either cooperatively or competitively. At the end of each trial, participants received performance feedback about their individual and joint errors and accompanying monetary rewards. Furthermore, the outcome, i.e. resulting positive, negative or neutral rewards, was dependent on the payoff matrix, defining the social situation either as cooperative or competitive. We used linear mixed effects models to analyze the feedback-related-negativity (FRN) and used the Thresholdfree cluster enhancement (TFCE) method to explore activations of all electrodes and times. We found main effects of the outcome and social situation at mid-line frontal electrodes. The FRN was more negative for losses than wins in both social situations. However, the FRN amplitudes differed between social situations. Moreover, we compared monetary with neutral outcomes in both social situations. Our exploratory TFCE analysis revealed that processing of feedback differs between cooperative and competitive situations at right temporo-parietal electrodes where the cooperative situation elicited more positive amplitudes. Further, the differences induced by the social situations were stronger in participants with higher scores on a perspective taking test. In sum, our results replicate previous studies about the FRN and extend them by comparing neurophysiological responses to positive and negative outcomes in a task that simultaneously engages two participants in competitive and cooperative situations.
... To date, a number of ERP studies have investigated how a sense of responsibility before or during performance modulates brain activity when evaluating monetary outcome in a social context (Beyer et al., 2017;Li et al., 2010;Loehr et al., 2015). For instance, our previous ERP study (involving a dice-tossing task) showed that the feedback-related RewP amplitude is reduced when one works together with two teammates compared to when one performs the task alone (Li et al., 2010). ...
... Furthermore, the amplitude of the RewP reduction is found to be associated with the subjective rating of responsibility reported after the experiment. These findings suggest that diffusion of responsibility influences neural activity during outcome evaluation (also see Loehr et al., 2015). Beyer et al. (2017) further demonstrated that diffusion of responsibility can moderate the sense of agency and reduce RewP amplitude, rather than just displaying a post-hoc self-serving bias. ...
Article
Performance monitoring plays a virtual role in individual reinforcement learning. However, it remains unclear how responsibility attribution modulates the individual monitoring process in a social cooperative context. In the present study, 46 participants received feedback on the team's monetary outcome, teammate performance, and their own performance sequentially for a two-person task. Using event-related potential (ERP), we analyze brain activity in response to performance monitoring during team and self feedback, indexed according to reward positivity (RewP). Overall, the participants reported a modest tendency towards causal attribution in terms of taking more responsibility for negative rather than positive team-feedback, thus indicating an opposite pattern to the so-called self-serving bias phenomenon. Based on post-experiment responsibility attribution, participants were further divided into a 'Modest' group (N = 23) who reported more responsibility for team failure than success, and an 'Ordinary' group (N = 23) who made comparable attribution irrespective of team outcome. The ERP results show that there is no difference in RewP amplitudes between the two groups when the participants were processing the team's monetary feedback. However, the observed RewP amplitudes are notably different in the Modest group when processing self-performance feedback at different levels of responsibility attribution. These findings demonstrate that neural activity during performance monitoring does not differ between the two groups. However, using different responsibility attribution tendencies does affect brain activity during individual performance monitoring. The observed RewP effect sheds light on the automatic and implicit evaluation of one's own performance in a social cooperative context.