Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 202, Issue 3, pp 571–581 | Cite as

Effects of response-set size on error-related brain activity

  • Martin E. Maier
  • Marco Steinhauser
  • Ronald Hübner
Research Article

Abstract

To study the effect of response-set size on action monitoring processes, the error-related negativity (Ne/ERN), the correct-related negativity (Nc/CRN), and behavioral indicators of action monitoring were compared across three groups of participants performing a two-choice, a four-choice, or an eight-choice version of the flanker task. After controlling for differential contribution of stimulus-related activity to response-locked averages resulting from large differences in response times across conditions, response-set size had strong effects on Ne/ERN and Nc/CRN. With increasing response-set size, the Ne/ERN amplitude decreased, but the Nc/CRN amplitude increased. Moreover, post-error behavioral adjustments were impaired with an increasing response-set size. These results suggest that action monitoring severely suffers when response-set size is increased. Implications of these findings for present theories of Ne/ERN and Nc/CRN are discussed.

Keywords

Action monitoring Error-related negativity Response uncertainty Post-error slowing Error detection Error signaling response 

References

  1. Alegria J, Bertelson P (1970) Time uncertainty, number of alternatives and particular signal–response pair as determinants of choice reaction time. Acta Psychol 33:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein PS, Scheffers MK, Coles MG (1995) “Where did I go wrong?” A psychophysiological analysis of error detection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:1312–1322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter CS, Braver TS, Barch DM, Botvinick M, Noll D, Cohen JD (1998) Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science 280:747–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Coles MGH, Scheffers MK, Holroyd CB (2001) Why is there an ERN/Ne on correct trials? Response representations, stimulus-related components, and the theory of error-processing. Biol Psychol 56:173–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Danielmeier C, Wessel JR, Steinhauser M, Ullsperger M (2009) Modulation of the error-related negativity by response conflict. Psychophysiology 46:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dehaene S, Posner MI, Tucker DM (1994) Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol Sci 5:303–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134:9–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Delorme A, Sejnowski T, Makeig S (2007) Enhanced detection of artifacts in EEG data using higher-order statistics and independent component analysis. Neuroimage 34:1443–1449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys 16:143–149Google Scholar
  10. Falkenstein M, Hohnsbein J, Hoormann J, Blanke L (1990) Effects of errors in choice reaction tasks on the ERP under focused and divided attention. In: Brunia CHM, Gaillard AWK, Kok A (eds) Psychophysiological brain research, 1. University Press, Tilburg, pp 192–195Google Scholar
  11. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Christ S, Hohnsbein J (2000) ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: a tutorial. Biol Psychol 51:87–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gehring WJ, Goss B, Coles MGH, Meyer DE, Donchin E (1993) A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol Sci 4:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gratton G, Coles MGH, Donchin E (1983) A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 55:468–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hajcak G, Vidal F, Simons RF (2004) Difficulties with easy tasks: ERN/Ne and stimulus component overlap. In: Ullsperger M, Falkenstein M (eds) Errors, conflicts, the brain. Current opinions on performance monitoring, 1. Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Leipzig, pp 204–211Google Scholar
  15. Hajcak G, Moser JS, Yeung N, Simons RF (2005) On the ERN and the significance of errors. Psychophysiology 42:151–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holroyd CB, Coles MGH (2002) The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev 109:679–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Laming D (1979) Choice reaction performance following an error. Acta Psychol 43:199–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Logan GD (1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychol Rev 95:492–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luu P, Tucker DM (2001) Regulating action: alternating activation of midline frontal and motor cortical networks. Clin Neurophysiol 112:1295–1306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Luu P, Flaisch T, Tucker DM (2000) Medial frontal cortex in action monitoring. J Neurosci 20:464–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Maier M, Steinhauser M, Hübner R (2008) Is the error-related negativity amplitude related to error detectability? Evidence of effects from different error types. J Cogn Neurosci 20:2263–2273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pailing PE, Segalowitz SJ (2004) The effects of uncertainty in error monitoring on associated ERPs. Brain Cogn 56:215–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rabbitt PM (1966) Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks. J Exp Psychol 71:264–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rabbitt PMA (1967) Time to detect errors as a function of factors affecting choice-response time. Acta Psychol 27:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rabbitt PMA (2002) Consciousness is slower than you think. Q J Exp Psychol Hum Exp Psychol 55:1081–1092Google Scholar
  27. Scheffers MK, Coles MGH (2000) Performance monitoring in a confusing world: error-related brain activity, judgments of response accuracy and types of errors. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:141–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinhauser M, Maier M, Hübner R (2008) Modeling behavioral measures of error detection in choice tasks: response monitoring versus conflict monitoring. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:158–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ullsperger M, von Cramon D (2001) Subprocesses of performance monitoring: a dissociation of error processing and response competition revealed by event-related fMRI and ERPs. Neuroimage 14:1387–1401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Usher M, Olami Z, McClelland JL (2002) Hick’s law in a stochastic race model with speed–accuracy tradeoff. J Math Psychol 46:704–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vidal F, Hasbroucq T, Grapperon J, Bonnet M (2000) Is the ‘error negativity’ specific to errors? Biol Psychol 51:109–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vidal F, Burle B, Bonnet M, Grapperon J, Hasbroucq T (2003) Error negativity on correct trials: a reexamination of available data. Biol Psychol 64:265–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeung N, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD (2004) The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev 111:931–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin E. Maier
    • 1
  • Marco Steinhauser
    • 1
  • Ronald Hübner
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich PsychologieUniversität KonstanzConstanceGermany

Personalised recommendations