Abstract

After committing an error, participants tend to perform more slowly. This phenomenon is called post-error slowing (PES). Although previous studies have explored the PES effect in the context of observed errors, the issue as to whether the slowing effect generalizes across tasksets remains unclear. Further, the generation mechanisms of PES following observed errors must be examined. To address the above issues, we employed an observation-execution task in three experiments. During each trial, participants were required to mentally observe the outcomes of their partners in the observation task and then to perform their own key-press according to the mapping rules in the execution task. In Experiment 1, the same tasksets were utilized in the observation task and the execution task, and three error rate conditions (20%, 50% and 80%) were established in the observation task. The results revealed that the PES effect after observed errors was obtained in all three error rate conditions, replicating and extending previous studies. In Experiment 2, distinct stimuli and response rules were utilized in the observation task and the execution task. The result pattern was the same as that in Experiment 1, suggesting that the PES effect after observed errors was a generic adjustment process. In Experiment 3, the response deadline was shortened in the execution task to rule out the ceiling effect, and two error rate conditions (50% and 80%) were established in the observation task. The PES effect after observed errors was still obtained in the 50% and 80% error rate conditions. However, the accuracy in the post-observed error trials was comparable to that in the post-observed correct trials, suggesting that the slowing effect and improved accuracy did not rely on the same underlying mechanism. Current findings indicate that the occurrence of PES after observed errors is not dependent on the probability of observed errors, consistent with the assumption of cognitive control account. Moreover, the PES effect appears across tasksets with distinct stimuli and response rules in the context of observed errors, reflecting a generic process. Additionally, the slowing effect and improved accuracy in the post-observed error trial do not occur together, suggesting that they are independent behavioral adjustments in the context of observed errors.

Highlights

  • In an ever-changing environment, human beings have to effectively monitor their behaviors to adjust and optimize future task performance according to experienced conflicts, errors or negative feedback

  • Correct trials following errors in the execution task were discarded to rule out the confusion that the slowing in trials was due to the participants’ own errors

  • Post hoc tests revealed that reaction time (RT) on post-observed error trials were significantly slower than those on post-observed correct trials in the three error rate conditions [20%: F(1,27) = 6.28, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.19; 50%: F(1,27) = 25.26, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.48; 80%: F(1,27) = 59.38, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.69]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In an ever-changing environment, human beings have to effectively monitor their behaviors to adjust and optimize future task performance according to experienced conflicts, errors or negative feedback. Several studies have reported improved accuracy after errors compared with post-correct trials [7,15,16,17]. Consistent with this account, Dutilh and colleagues used the drift diffusion model to isolate and identify the psychological processes responsible for the PES effect. They found that the PES effect was mainly associated with an increase in response caution [18]

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call