Limits...
Event-related potential correlates of performance-monitoring in a lateralized time-estimation task.

Gruendler TO, Ullsperger M, Huster RJ - PLoS ONE (2011)

Bottom Line: Several event-related brain potentials (ERP) are associated with performance-monitoring, but their conceptual background differs.The N2 is visible in the EEG when the participant successfully inhibits a response following a cue and thereby adapts to a given stop-signal.Other than that, task lateralization affected neither behavior related to error and feedback processing nor ERN or FRN.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cognitive Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Neurological Research, Cologne, Germany. theo@gruendler.de

ABSTRACT
Performance-monitoring as a key function of cognitive control covers a wide range of diverse processes to enable goal directed behavior and to avoid maladjustments. Several event-related brain potentials (ERP) are associated with performance-monitoring, but their conceptual background differs. For example, the feedback-related negativity (FRN) is associated with unexpected performance feedback and might serve as a teaching signal for adaptational processes, whereas the error-related negativity (ERN) is associated with error commission and subsequent behavioral adaptation. The N2 is visible in the EEG when the participant successfully inhibits a response following a cue and thereby adapts to a given stop-signal. Here, we present an innovative paradigm to concurrently study these different performance-monitoring-related ERPs. In 24 participants a tactile time-estimation task interspersed with infrequent stop-signal trials reliably elicited all three ERPs. Sensory input and motor output were completely lateralized, in order to estimate any hemispheric processing preferences for the different aspects of performance monitoring associated with these ERPs. In accordance with the literature our data suggest augmented inhibitory capabilities in the right hemisphere given that stop-trial performance was significantly better with left- as compared to right-hand stop-signals. In line with this, the N2 scalp distribution was generally shifted to the right in addition to an ipsilateral shift in relation to the response hand. Other than that, task lateralization affected neither behavior related to error and feedback processing nor ERN or FRN. Comparing the ERP topographies using the Global Map Dissimilarity index, a large topographic overlap was found between all considered components.With an evenly distributed set of trials and a split-half reliability for all ERP components ≥.85 the task is well suited to efficiently study N2, ERN, and FRN concurrently which might prove useful for group comparisons, especially in clinical populations.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Performance data in the time-estimation task.Absolute changes in response time following expected (correct easy trials and erroneous hard trials) and unexpected outcomes (correct hard trials and erroneous easy trials).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3198451&req=5

pone-0025591-g006: Performance data in the time-estimation task.Absolute changes in response time following expected (correct easy trials and erroneous hard trials) and unexpected outcomes (correct hard trials and erroneous easy trials).

Mentions: The behavioral data indicate a successful manipulation of time-estimation success (F2,46 = 2083.48, p<.001, ηp2 = .99): in the control condition participants were correct on about ½ of the trials (left hand (LH): 48.5%; right hand (RH): 50.2%), in the hard condition in about ⅓ of the trials (LH: 29.9%; RH: 28.3%), and in ⅔ of the easy trials (LH: 71.8%; RH: 70.9%). No differences between LH and RH stimulations were seen (F<1). Consistent with the error rate, the median size of the response window was smaller in the hard condition (LH: 112 ms ±39; RH: 108 ms ±39) than in the easy condition (LH: 316 ms ±89; RH: 321 ms ±103)( F1,23 = 206.50, p<.001, ηp2 = .90). Again no effect of hand or interaction of hand and condition were observed. The absolute change in reaction time was larger on trials that immediately followed error trials than on trials that immediately followed correct trials in all conditions (F2,23 = 268.36, p<.001, ηp2 = .92), with the smallest adaptation after correct responses in the hard condition (F2,46 = 3.95, p = .026, ηp2 = .15)(see Figure 6).


Event-related potential correlates of performance-monitoring in a lateralized time-estimation task.

Gruendler TO, Ullsperger M, Huster RJ - PLoS ONE (2011)

Performance data in the time-estimation task.Absolute changes in response time following expected (correct easy trials and erroneous hard trials) and unexpected outcomes (correct hard trials and erroneous easy trials).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3198451&req=5

pone-0025591-g006: Performance data in the time-estimation task.Absolute changes in response time following expected (correct easy trials and erroneous hard trials) and unexpected outcomes (correct hard trials and erroneous easy trials).
Mentions: The behavioral data indicate a successful manipulation of time-estimation success (F2,46 = 2083.48, p<.001, ηp2 = .99): in the control condition participants were correct on about ½ of the trials (left hand (LH): 48.5%; right hand (RH): 50.2%), in the hard condition in about ⅓ of the trials (LH: 29.9%; RH: 28.3%), and in ⅔ of the easy trials (LH: 71.8%; RH: 70.9%). No differences between LH and RH stimulations were seen (F<1). Consistent with the error rate, the median size of the response window was smaller in the hard condition (LH: 112 ms ±39; RH: 108 ms ±39) than in the easy condition (LH: 316 ms ±89; RH: 321 ms ±103)( F1,23 = 206.50, p<.001, ηp2 = .90). Again no effect of hand or interaction of hand and condition were observed. The absolute change in reaction time was larger on trials that immediately followed error trials than on trials that immediately followed correct trials in all conditions (F2,23 = 268.36, p<.001, ηp2 = .92), with the smallest adaptation after correct responses in the hard condition (F2,46 = 3.95, p = .026, ηp2 = .15)(see Figure 6).

Bottom Line: Several event-related brain potentials (ERP) are associated with performance-monitoring, but their conceptual background differs.The N2 is visible in the EEG when the participant successfully inhibits a response following a cue and thereby adapts to a given stop-signal.Other than that, task lateralization affected neither behavior related to error and feedback processing nor ERN or FRN.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cognitive Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Neurological Research, Cologne, Germany. theo@gruendler.de

ABSTRACT
Performance-monitoring as a key function of cognitive control covers a wide range of diverse processes to enable goal directed behavior and to avoid maladjustments. Several event-related brain potentials (ERP) are associated with performance-monitoring, but their conceptual background differs. For example, the feedback-related negativity (FRN) is associated with unexpected performance feedback and might serve as a teaching signal for adaptational processes, whereas the error-related negativity (ERN) is associated with error commission and subsequent behavioral adaptation. The N2 is visible in the EEG when the participant successfully inhibits a response following a cue and thereby adapts to a given stop-signal. Here, we present an innovative paradigm to concurrently study these different performance-monitoring-related ERPs. In 24 participants a tactile time-estimation task interspersed with infrequent stop-signal trials reliably elicited all three ERPs. Sensory input and motor output were completely lateralized, in order to estimate any hemispheric processing preferences for the different aspects of performance monitoring associated with these ERPs. In accordance with the literature our data suggest augmented inhibitory capabilities in the right hemisphere given that stop-trial performance was significantly better with left- as compared to right-hand stop-signals. In line with this, the N2 scalp distribution was generally shifted to the right in addition to an ipsilateral shift in relation to the response hand. Other than that, task lateralization affected neither behavior related to error and feedback processing nor ERN or FRN. Comparing the ERP topographies using the Global Map Dissimilarity index, a large topographic overlap was found between all considered components.With an evenly distributed set of trials and a split-half reliability for all ERP components ≥.85 the task is well suited to efficiently study N2, ERN, and FRN concurrently which might prove useful for group comparisons, especially in clinical populations.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus