Ines Jentzsch

Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing

People often become slower in their performance after committing an error, which is usually explained by strategic control adjustments towards a more conservative response threshold. The present study tested an alternative hypothesis for explaining posterror slowing in terms of behavioural interferences resulting from error monitoring by manipulating stimulus contrast and categorization difficulty in a choice reaction time task. The response–stimulus interval (RSI) was either short or long, using a between-subject (Experiment 1) and a within-subject design (Experiment 2). Posterror slowing was larger and posterror accuracy lower in short than in long RSI situations. Effects of stimulus contrast disappeared in posterror trials when RSI was short. At long RSIs, stimulus contrast was additive with posterror slowing. The results support the idea that at least two mechanisms contribute to posterror slowing: a capacity-limited error-monitoring process with the strongest influence at short RSIs and a criterion adjustment mechanism at longer RSIs.

Event related potentials and the perception of intensity in facial expressions

It is well known from everyday experience, that facial expressions of emotions can very much vary in intensity, e.g. ranging from mild anger to rage, or from uneasiness and mild fear to angst and panic. However, the effect of different intensities of facial expressions of emotion on event related potentials has yet not been studied. We therefore investigated 16 healthy participants with a gender decision task to male and female faces displaying angry, disgusted and fearful facial expressions varying in intensity (50%, 100%, 150%). Analysis of ERP data showed a significant increase in amplitude of the N170 by intensity, but not by type of emotion. The intensity induced negative variation was most pronounced between 200 and 600ms at electrodes P9 and P10. For this time segment, there was a clear linear relationship between intensity and degree of negative deflection. A dipole source localisation of the intensity effect using the difference waveform (150% minus 50% intensity) revealed two symmetrically positioned generators within the inferior temporo-occipital lobe. An emotion specific effect for disgust was further found at temporal electrode sites (FT7 and FT8) at around 350-400ms. Results are summarised in a two-phase model of emotion recognition, suggesting the existence of an initial monitoring process which codes saliency of incoming facial information. In a second step, the specific emotional content of faces is decoded in emotion specific recognition systems.

Neural correlates of advance movement preparation: a dipole source analysis approach

This study examined cortical motor structures that are involved in preprogramming and execution of movements. In two independent experiments a response precuing task was employed that combined the recording of movement-related brain potentials (MRPs) with spatio-temporal source localization. Behavioral and MRP results indicated the utilization of advance information about movement direction and hand. Dipole source modeling of foreperiod MRPs revealed a reliable three-dipole solution with sources located in lateral and medial brain regions anterior to the precentral gyrus. These dipoles were located in the lateral premotor area (PMA) and supplementary/cingulate motor areas (SMA/CMA). Activity of the medial dipole increased with the extent of advance motor preparation, whereas lateral dipole activity revealed parallel preparation of both response hands when only partial information about movement direction was available. The dissociation in the strength and the onset of medial and lateral dipole activity indicated two phases of motor preparation. We propose that medial motor areas like SMA and CMA are involved in the assembling and selection of abstract movement programs, whereas lateral PMA and primary motor cortex are involved in effector-specific motor preparation.

Distinguishing neural sources of movement preparation and execution: An electrophysiological analysis

The present study examined lateralized event-related potentials (L-ERPs) associated with movement preparation and execution. In a response precuing task that involved hand and foot movements a precue conveyed either information about side and effector, side alone, or no information. Advance movement preparation was indicated by RT shortening with increasing amount of precue information. L-ERPs revealed during the preparatory interval an initial parietal activity when movement side was precued. Later in the preparatory interval L-ERPs revealed a polarity inversion for foot versus hand movements when effector and side were specified in advance. This polarity inversion showed up also in execution-related L-ERP waveforms. Comparison of preparation- versus execution-related brain signals yielded topographic differences and dissimilar dipole sources for hand-related L-ERP activity. We take present findings to indicate that brain generators within the parietal lobe and anterior MI are hierarchically related to precue-induced motor preparation, whilst posterior MI is associated with motor execution functions.

Seeing yourself in a positive light: Brain correlates of the self-positivity bias

Individuals are found to have better recall for self-referent information than other types of information. However, attribution research has shown that self-reference is highly correlated with emotional valence. The present study attempted to identify and separate the processing of self-reference and emotional valence using ERPs. Participants performed a two-choice task, judging the self-referential content of positive and negative words. Reaction times revealed an interaction between self-reference and emotional valence. Faster responses occurred after self-positive and non-self negative words as compared to self-negative and non-self-positive words. A similar interaction was identified in ERP waveforms in the time range of the N400 component at fronto-central electrode sites, with larger N400 amplitudes for words outwith the self-positivity bias. Thus, the size of the N400 may indicate the extent to which information is discrepant with the individuals self-concept.

Speeding before and slowing after errors: is it all just strategy?

People are usually faster before and slower after committing an error. This finding has traditionally been explained by strategic changes of response criteria to less or more conservative thresholds. This idea has been implemented in current cognitive control frameworks, where it is proposed that high or low levels of processing conflict can dynamically change these response thresholds to achieve optimal performance. However, recent evidence suggests that evaluation of conflict is time consuming and can potentially interfere with subsequent processing [Jentzsch, I., Dudschig, C., 2009. Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 209-218]. The present study aims to extend this finding by investigating whether similar mechanisms underlie effects of pre-error speeding and posterror slowing and whether the amplitude of the Ne/ERN predicts posterror slowing in the current task setting. The response stimulus interval (RSI) was systematically manipulated. Speed-up in pre-error trials was unaffected by RSI, suggesting that this effect is not the result of strategic, time-consuming control processes. Posterror slowing dramatically increased and performance became more error prone with decreasing RSI, providing further evidence for the idea that error evaluation can produce substantial interference with subsequent trial processing, particularly when there is insufficient time between the error and the subsequent event. Importantly, we did not find a positive relationship between the RSI-dependent change in posterror slowing and the Ne/ERN amplitude, questioning a direct link between the amplitude of this component and the amount of subsequent performance adjustments.

Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks

Reaction times (RTs) to randomly ordered stimuli are influenced in various ways by the sequence of preceding events. Depending on the response-stimulus interval and stimulus-response compatibility, cost-only or cost-benefit patterns can be observed. In order to localize these effects within the informationprocessing system, different sequential patterns were induced in overt performance. RTs and amplitude developments of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) across several trials indicated the accumulation of residual traces as a possible mechanism underlying sequential effects. Analysis of LRP onsets indicated two possible loci of action of such traces. Whereas in motoric stages trace accumulation appeared to produce processing advantages only for continued event repetitions, without corresponding costs for discontinuations, cost-benefit patterns were consistently observed in premotoric stages.

Advance movement preparation of eye, foot, and hand: a comparative study using movement-related brain potentials.

The present study was designed to test the inter-relationship between generalized motor programs (GMPs) and movement preparation by asking participants to perform movements with eye, foot, or hand. In two independent experiments a response precuing task was employed that combined the recording of movement-related brain potentials (MRPs) with dipole source analysis. Behavioral results indicated the utilization of advance information about movement direction and effector. When eye and hand movements were involved (experiment1) partial advance information about response side but not effector induced parallel motor programming of eye and hand at an abstract but not effector-specific level. In contrast, when partial precues specified side of a forthcoming hand or foot movement (experiment 2) foot and hand were prepared in parallel both at abstract and at effector-specific levels of motor programming. Consistent with the GMP view, these results indicate that effector-specific preparation is possible even when the effector is not yet known as long as a common motor program controls the demanded movements. However, because parallel specification of divergent movement pattern (eye, hand) at an abstract level was not predicted by the GMP, we propose a model of advance movement preparation that takes into account neurofunctional considerations.

Decomposing Sources of Response Slowing in the PRP Paradigm.

The mechanism underlying the reaction time (RT2) slowing to the 2nd of 2 successively presented stimuli (S1 and S2) in the psychological refractory period paradigm was investigated. Stimulus onset synchrony (SOA) between S1 and S2, contrast of S2, and Task 2 set-level compatibility was manipulated. Specifically, the authors used a psychophysiological approach to examine RT2 slowing in trials in which the reaction time to S1 (RT1) was shorter than the SOA. For trials with RT1 < SOA, the clear decrease in RT2 with increasing SOA was underadditive with the S2 contrast effect, but additive with compatibility. Electrophysiological measures revealed an exclusively premotoric locus of RT2 slowing. These findings indicate that a central bottleneck stage is occupied for some period after response to S1 execution, consistent with an extended response selection bottleneck account.

Motor Limitation in Dual-Task Processing Under Ballistic Movement Conditions

The standard bottleneck model of the psychological refractory period (PRP) assumes that the selection of the second response is postponed until the first response has been selected. Accordingly, dual-task interference is attributed to a single central-processing bottleneck involving decision and response selection, but not the execution of the response itself. In order to critically examine the assumption that response execution is not part of this bottleneck, we systematically manipulated the temporal demand for executing the first response in a classical PRP paradigm. Contrary to the assumption of the standard bottleneck model, this manipulation affected the reaction time for Task 2. Specifically, reaction time for Task 2 increased with execution time for Task 1. This carryover effect from Task 1 to Task 2 provides evidence for the notion that response execution can be part of the processing bottleneck.