↓ Skip to main content

Error awareness and the error-related negativity: evaluating the first decade of evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
358 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
Error awareness and the error-related negativity: evaluating the first decade of evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan R. Wessel

Abstract

From its discovery in the early 1990s until this day, the error-related negativity (ERN) remains the most widely investigated electrophysiological index of cortical error processing. When researchers began addressing the electrophysiology of subjective error awareness more than a decade ago, the role of the ERN, alongside the subsequently occurring error positivity (Pe), was an obvious locus of attention. However, the first two studies explicitly addressing the role of error-related event-related brain potentials (ERPs) would already set the tone for what still remains a controversy today: in contrast to the clear-cut findings that link the amplitude of the Pe to error awareness, the association between ERN amplitude and error awareness is vastly unclear. An initial study reported significant differences in ERN amplitude with respect to subjective error awareness, whereas the second failed to report this result, leading to a myriad of follow-up studies that seemed to back up or contradict either view. Here, I review those studies that explicitly dealt with the role of the error-related ERPs in subjective error awareness, and try to explain the differences in reported effects of error awareness on ERN amplitude. From the point of view presented here, different findings between studies can be explained by disparities in experimental design and data analysis, specifically with respect to the quantification of subjective error awareness. Based on the review of these results, I will then try to embed the error-related negativity into a widely known model of the implementation of access consciousness in the brain, the global neuronal workspace (GNW) model, and speculate as the ERN's potential role in such a framework. At last, I will outline future challenges in the investigation of the cortical electrophysiology of error awareness, and offer some suggestions on how they could potentially be addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 358 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Italy 4 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 333 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 93 26%
Researcher 51 14%
Student > Master 48 13%
Student > Bachelor 34 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 59 16%
Unknown 47 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 153 43%
Neuroscience 49 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 6%
Engineering 19 5%
Computer Science 13 4%
Other 38 11%
Unknown 64 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#5,849,269
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,374
of 7,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,350
of 244,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#116
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 244,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.