TY - JOUR
T1 - Foreshadowing of performance accuracy by event-related potentials
T2 - Evidence from a minimal-conflict task
AU - Masaki, Hiroaki
AU - Murphy, Timothy I.
AU - Kamijo, Keita
AU - Yamazaki, Katuo
AU - Sommer, Werner
PY - 2012/5/31
Y1 - 2012/5/31
N2 - Background: Recent studies employing stimulus-response compatibility tasks suggest that an increase in the amplitude of the positive deflection of the response-locked event-related potential (ERP) foreshadows errors on forthcoming trials. However, no studies have tested the generalizability of error-foreshadowing positivity to tasks without stimulus-response interference. Methodology/Principal Findings: The present study adopted an alternating-response task, in which the participants responded to the pointing direction of an arrowhead (up or down). Although the arrowhead direction alternated for the majority of trials (95%), occasionally this pattern was broken by a repeated stimulus, termed a lure trial. We compared the matched-reaction-time correct-preceding ERP with the error-preceding ERP on lure-preceding trials. There was no evidence that errors are foreshadowed by the increase of a positive electroencephalogram (EEG) deflection. To the contrary, analyses of ERPs time-locked to electromyogram (EMG) onset on the five consecutive lure-preceding trials showed larger positive deflections on correct-preceding than error-preceding trials. The post-response negativity did not differ between correct-preceding and error-preceding trials. Conclusions/Significance: These results suggest that in minimal conflict tasks a decreased positivity may foreshadow incorrect performance several trials prior to the error, possibly reflecting the waning of task-related efforts. Therefore, error-foreshadowing brain signals may be task-specific.
AB - Background: Recent studies employing stimulus-response compatibility tasks suggest that an increase in the amplitude of the positive deflection of the response-locked event-related potential (ERP) foreshadows errors on forthcoming trials. However, no studies have tested the generalizability of error-foreshadowing positivity to tasks without stimulus-response interference. Methodology/Principal Findings: The present study adopted an alternating-response task, in which the participants responded to the pointing direction of an arrowhead (up or down). Although the arrowhead direction alternated for the majority of trials (95%), occasionally this pattern was broken by a repeated stimulus, termed a lure trial. We compared the matched-reaction-time correct-preceding ERP with the error-preceding ERP on lure-preceding trials. There was no evidence that errors are foreshadowed by the increase of a positive electroencephalogram (EEG) deflection. To the contrary, analyses of ERPs time-locked to electromyogram (EMG) onset on the five consecutive lure-preceding trials showed larger positive deflections on correct-preceding than error-preceding trials. The post-response negativity did not differ between correct-preceding and error-preceding trials. Conclusions/Significance: These results suggest that in minimal conflict tasks a decreased positivity may foreshadow incorrect performance several trials prior to the error, possibly reflecting the waning of task-related efforts. Therefore, error-foreshadowing brain signals may be task-specific.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861694883&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861694883&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0038006
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0038006
M3 - Article
C2 - 22701541
AN - SCOPUS:84861694883
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 7
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 5
M1 - e38006
ER -