Neural correlates of error detection during complex response selection: Introduction of a novel eight-alternative response task
•Error detection in complex response selection was investigated.•In the 8 alternative response task different error types could be identified.•Response speed had an impact on the neural correlates of error processing.•Response force findings indicated early error correction processes. Error processi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biological psychology 2020-10, Vol.156, p.107969-107969, Article 107969 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •Error detection in complex response selection was investigated.•In the 8 alternative response task different error types could be identified.•Response speed had an impact on the neural correlates of error processing.•Response force findings indicated early error correction processes.
Error processing in complex decision tasks should be more difficult compared to a simple and commonly used two-choice task. We developed an eight-alternative response task (8ART), which allowed us to investigate different aspects of error detection. We analysed event-related potentials (ERP; N = 30). Interestingly, the response time moderated several findings. For example, only for fast responses, we observed the well-known effect of larger error negativity (Ne) in signalled and non-signalled errors compared to correct responses, but not for slow responses. We identified at least two different error sources due to post-experimental reports and certainty ratings: impulsive (fast) errors and (slow) memory errors. Interestingly, the participants were able to perform the task and to identify both, impulsive and memory errors successfully. Preliminary evidence indicated that early (Ne-related) error processing was not sensitive to memory errors but to impulsive errors, whereas the error positivity seemed to be sensitive to both error types. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0301-0511 1873-6246 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107969 |