↓ Skip to main content

Impaired rapid error monitoring but intact error signaling following rostral anterior cingulate cortex lesions in humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Impaired rapid error monitoring but intact error signaling following rostral anterior cingulate cortex lesions in humans
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin E. Maier, Francesco Di Gregorio, Teresa Muricchio, Giuseppe Di Pellegrino

Abstract

Detecting one's own errors and appropriately correcting behavior are crucial for efficient goal-directed performance. A correlate of rapid evaluation of behavioral outcomes is the error-related negativity (Ne/ERN) which emerges at the time of the erroneous response over frontal brain areas. However, whether the error monitoring system's ability to distinguish between errors and correct responses at this early time point is a necessary precondition for the subsequent emergence of error awareness remains unclear. The present study investigated this question using error-related brain activity and vocal error signaling responses in seven human patients with lesions in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) and adjoining ventromedial prefrontal cortex, while they performed a flanker task. The difference between errors and correct responses was severely attenuated in these patients indicating impaired rapid error monitong, but they showed no impairment in error signaling. However, impaired rapid error monitoring coincided with a failure to increase response accuracy on trials following errors. These results demonstrate that the error monitoring system's ability to distinguish between errors and correct responses at the time of the response is crucial for adaptive post-error adjustments, but not a necessary precondition for error awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 39%
Neuroscience 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,436,543
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,069
of 7,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,308
of 264,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#92
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 264,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.