↓ Skip to main content

Learning from Errors: Error-Related Neural Activity Predicts Improvements in Future Inhibitory Control Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning from Errors: Error-Related Neural Activity Predicts Improvements in Future Inhibitory Control Performance
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, June 2009
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.4337-08.2009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Hester, Janelle Madeley, Kevin Murphy, Jason B. Mattingley

Abstract

Failure to adapt performance following an error is a debilitating symptom of many neurological and psychiatric conditions. Healthy individuals readily adapt their behavior in response to an error, an ability thought to be subserved by the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC). However, it remains unclear how humans adaptively alter cognitive control behavior when they reencounter situations that were previously failed minutes or days ago. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we examined neural activity during a Go/No-go response inhibition task that provided the opportunity for participants to learn from their errors. When they failed to inhibit their response, they were shown the same target stimulus during the next No-go trial, which itself could occur up to 20 trials after its initial presentation. Activity within the pMFC was significantly greater for initial errors that were subsequently corrected than for errors that were repeated later in the display sequence. Moreover, pMFC activity during errors predicted future responses despite a sizeable interval (on average 12 trials) between an error and the next No-go stimulus. Our results indicate that changes in cognitive control performance can be predicted using error-related activity. The increased likelihood of adaptive changes occurring during periods of recent success is consistent with models of error-related activity that argue for the influence of outcome expectancy (Holroyd and Coles, 2002; Brown and Braver, 2005). The findings may also help to explain the diminished error-related neural activity in such clinical conditions as schizophrenia, as well as the propensity for perseverative behavior in these clinical groups.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
France 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 123 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Student > Master 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 17 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 14%
Neuroscience 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 28 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2009.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#18,512
of 23,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,854
of 113,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#143
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,123 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 113,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.