4.7 Article

Neural mechanisms involved in error processing: A comparison of errors made with and without awareness

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 602-608

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.035

Keywords

neural mechanisms; error processing; fMRI

Funding

  1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR000058] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH065350, R03MH063434] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA014100, R03DA018685] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00058] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIDA NIH HHS [DA14100, DA018685] Funding Source: Medline
  6. NIMH NIH HHS [MH65350, MH63434] Funding Source: Medline
  7. NCCDPHP CDC HHS [DP0556602] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ability to detect an error in one's own performance and then to improve ongoing performance based on this error processing is critical for effective behaviour. In our event-related fMRI experiment, we show that explicit awareness of a response inhibition commission error and subsequent post-error behaviour were associated with bilateral prefrontal and parietal brain activation. Activity in the anterior cingulate region, typically associated with error detection, was equivalent for both errors subjects were aware of and those they were not aware of making. While anterior cingulate activation has repeatedly been associated with error-related processing, these results suggest that, in isolation, it is not sufficient for conscious awareness of errors or post-error adaptation of response strategies. Instead, it appears, irrespective of awareness, to detect information about stimuli/responses that requires interpretation in other brain regions for strategic implementation of post-error adjustments of behaviour. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available