Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How does error correction differ from error signaling? An event-related potential study.

Markus Ullsperger1, D Yves von Cramon

  • 1Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Stephanstr. 1a, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. ullsperg@cbs.mpg.de <ullsperg@cbs.mpg.de>

Brain Research
|February 18, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Postoperative pain after joint replacement surgery : A randomized controlled trial of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation and the role of depression and anxiety.

Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)·2026
Same author

A thin line between conflict and reaction time effects on EEG and fMRI brain signals.

Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)·2025
Same author

Decoding deception with the P300: A meta-analysis of the Concealed Information Test.

International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology·2025
Same author

Methamphetamine-induced adaptation of learning rate dynamics depend on baseline performance.

eLife·2025
Same author

Cognitive impairment and associated neurobehavioral dysfunction in post-COVID syndrome.

Psychiatry research·2025
Same author

Error-driven upregulation of memory representations.

Communications psychology·2025
Same journal

Emotions, the amygdala, and the right hemisphere.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Electroacupuncture treatment enhances hippocampal growth hormone level and restores mitochondrial function in vascular dementia rats.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Effects of transcutaneous auricular nerve stimulation on thalamic relay: A randomized brain imaging study in chronic low back pain patients.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Adaptive reconfiguration of prefrontal networks during prolonged cognitive interference: Evidence from fNIRS.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Horizontal image compression significantly impairs human face identity recognition.

Brain research·2026
Same journal

Altered theta-band sensory gating in individuals with high sensory processing sensitivity (SPS).

Brain research·2026
See all related articles

Immediate error corrections in reaction time tasks may involve lowering motor thresholds rather than solely relying on performance monitoring. Error signaling is a more reliable method for assessing performance monitoring integrity.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Psychology
  • Human Performance

Background:

  • Debate exists on whether immediate error corrections rely on performance monitoring or delayed correct responses.
  • Error signaling via an external button is understood to be based on error detection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Investigate similarities and differences between immediate error corrections and error signaling responses.
  • Examine the role of performance monitoring and motor thresholds in error correction strategies.

Main Methods:

  • Within-subject design using the flanker task across two sessions: immediate error correction and error signaling.
  • Collected behavioral data (reaction times, error rates) and event-related potential (ERP) data, including the error-related negativity (ERN).

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The error correction session showed more errors, more error corrections, shorter reaction times, and a reduced ERN amplitude compared to the error signaling session.
  • Participants likely reduced motor thresholds in the correction session to facilitate immediate corrections, supported by lateralized readiness potentials.

Conclusions:

  • Differences in error correction strategies may stem from variations in motor thresholds, not necessarily error significance.
  • Error signaling is a more direct and reliable method for assessing performance monitoring system integrity than immediate error correction instructions.