» Articles » PMID: 29464553

Heart Work After Errors: Behavioral Adjustment Following Error Commission Involves Cardiac Effort

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2018 Feb 22
PMID 29464553
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Posterror slowing (PES) is the observation that people respond slower on trials subsequent to error commissions than on trials subsequent to correct responses. Different accounts have been proposed to explain PES. On the one hand, it has been suggested that PES arises from an adaptive increase in cognitive control following error commission, thereby making people more cautious after making an error. On the other hand, PES has been attributed to an orienting response, indicating that attention is shifted toward the error. In the present study we tested these accounts by investigating the effects of error commission in both flanker and switch tasks on two task-evoked cardiac measures: the interbeat interval-that is, the interval between two consecutive R peaks-and the RZ interval-that is, the interval between the R peak and the Z point-as measured using electro- and impedance cardiography, respectively. These measures allowed us to measure cardiac deceleration (autonomic orienting) and cardiac effort mobilization, respectively. Our results revealed a shorter RZ interval during posterror trials, indicating increased effort mobilization following errors. In addition, we replicated earlier studies that have shown cardiac slowing during error trials. However, multilevel analyses showed that only the posterror decrease in RZ interval predicted posterror reaction times, whereas there was no positive relationship between error-related cardiac deceleration and posterror reaction times. Our results suggest that PES is related to increased cardiac effort, supporting a cognitive-control account of PES.

Citing Articles

Affective Influences on the Intensity of Mental Effort: 25 Years of Programmatic Research.

Gendolla G Emot Rev. 2025; 17(1):46-63.

PMID: 39886542 PMC: 11774668. DOI: 10.1177/17540739241303506.


Combining Cardiovascular and Pupil Features Using k-Nearest Neighbor Classifiers to Assess Task Demand, Social Context, and Sentence Accuracy During Listening.

Plain B, Pielage H, Kramer S, Richter M, Saunders G, Versfeld N Trends Hear. 2024; 28:23312165241232551.

PMID: 38549351 PMC: 10981225. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241232551.


A functional account of stimulation-based aerobic glycolysis and its role in interpreting BOLD signal intensity increases in neuroimaging experiments.

Theriault J, Shaffer C, Dienel G, Sander C, Hooker J, Dickerson B Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023; 153:105373.

PMID: 37634556 PMC: 10591873. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105373.


Is cognitive conflict really effortful? Conflict priming and shielding effects on cardiac response.

Bouzidi Y, Gendolla G Psychophysiology. 2022; 60(2):e14169.

PMID: 36073767 PMC: 10078432. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.14169.


On the processing of optimal performances: Studying arousal evoked by being correct and fast.

Valt C, Sturmer B Brain Behav. 2021; 11(6):e02162.

PMID: 33960718 PMC: 8213646. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2162.


References
1.
Ullsperger M, von Cramon D . How does error correction differ from error signaling? An event-related potential study. Brain Res. 2006; 1105(1):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.007. View

2.
Shenhav A, Musslick S, Lieder F, Kool W, Griffiths T, Cohen J . Toward a Rational and Mechanistic Account of Mental Effort. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017; 40:99-124. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031526. View

3.
van der Wel P, van Steenbergen H . Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 25(6):2005-2015. PMC: 6267528. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y. View

4.
Braver T, Barch D, Gray J, Molfese D, Snyder A . Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: effects of frequency, inhibition and errors. Cereb Cortex. 2001; 11(9):825-36. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/11.9.825. View

5.
van der Molen M . Developmental changes in inhibitory processing: evidence from psychophysiological measures. Biol Psychol. 2000; 54(1-3):207-39. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00057-0. View