↓ Skip to main content

The Sustained Influence of an Error on Future Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
The Sustained Influence of an Error on Future Decision-Making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Björn C. Schiffler, Sara L. Bengtsson, Daniel Lundqvist

Abstract

Post-error slowing (PES) is consistently observed in decision-making tasks after negative feedback. Yet, findings are inconclusive as to whether PES supports performance accuracy. We addressed the role of PES by employing drift diffusion modeling which enabled us to investigate latent processes of reaction times and accuracy on a large-scale dataset (>5,800 participants) of a visual search experiment with emotional face stimuli. In our experiment, post-error trials were characterized by both adaptive and non-adaptive decision processes. An adaptive increase in participants' response threshold was sustained over several trials post-error. Contrarily, an initial decrease in evidence accumulation rate, followed by an increase on the subsequent trials, indicates a momentary distraction of task-relevant attention and resulted in an initial accuracy drop. Higher values of decision threshold and evidence accumulation on the post-error trial were associated with higher accuracy on subsequent trials which further gives credence to these parameters' role in post-error adaptation. Finally, the evidence accumulation rate post-error decreased when the error trial presented angry faces, a finding suggesting that the post-error decision can be influenced by the error context. In conclusion, we demonstrate that error-related response adaptations are multi-component processes that change dynamically over several trials post-error.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 29%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 32%
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 29 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,867,545
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,563
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,106
of 316,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#457
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 316,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.