In the present experiment, we used event-related potentials (ERP) to investigate the role of immediate and delayed feedback in an artificial grammar learning (AGL) task. Two groups of participants were engaged in classifying non-word strings according to an underlying rule system, not known to the participants. Visual feedback was provided after each classification either immediately or with a short delay of 1 s. Both groups were able to learn the artificial grammar system as indicated by an increase in classification performance. However, the gain in performance was significantly larger for the group receiving immediate feedback as compared to the group receiving delayed feedback. Learning was accompanied by an increase in P300 activity in the ERP for delayed as compared to immediate feedback. Irrespective of feedback delay, both groups exhibited learning related decreases in the feedback-related positivity (FRP) elicited by positive feedback only. The feedback-related negativity (FRN), however, remained constant over the course of learning. These results suggest, first, that delayed feedback is less effective for AGL as task requirements are very demanding, and second, that the FRP elicited by positive prediction errors decreases with learning while the FRN to negative prediction errors is elicited in an all-or-none fashion by negative feedback throughout the entire experiment.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 22 October 2024.
All research outputs
#2,101,107
of 32,674,756 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#886
of 8,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,427
of 242,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#15
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,674,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 242,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
