Post-error Slowing During Motor Sequence Learning Under Extrinsic and Intrinsic Error Feedback Conditions

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2024 Nov 9

PMID 39520578

Authors

Hassan Ali

Alex Chatburn

Maarten A Immink

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Post-error slowing, described as an error-corrective index of response binding during motor sequence learning, has only been demonstrated in the serial reaction time task under conditions where extrinsic error feedback is presented. The present experiment investigated whether post-error slowing is dependent on, or is influenced by, extrinsic error feedback. Thirty participants (14 females, M = 21.9 ± 1.8 years) completed the serial reaction time task with or without presentation of extrinsic error feedback. Post-error slowing was observed following response error whether feedback was presented or not. However, presentation of extrinsic error feedback increased post-error slowing across practice and extended the number of responses that were slowed following an error. There was no evidence of feedback effects on motor sequence learning or explicit awareness. Instead, feedback appeared to function as a performance factor that reduced response error rates relative to no feedback conditions. These findings illustrate that post-error slowing in motor sequence learning is not reliant on or a result of presentation of extrinsic error information. More specific to the serial reaction time task paradigm, the present findings demonstrate that the common practice of presenting error feedback is not necessary for investigating motor sequence learning unless the aim is to maintain low error rate. However, doing so might inflate reaction time in latter training blocks.

References

Adams R, Shipp S, Friston K . Predictions not commands: active inference in the motor system. Brain Struct Funct. 2012; 218(3):611-43. PMC: 3637647. DOI: 10.1007/s00429-012-0475-5. View

Adkins T, Zhang H, Lee T . People are more error-prone after committing an error. Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):6422. PMC: 11289479. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-50547-y. View

Austin P, Hux J . A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 36(1):194-5. DOI: 10.1067/mva.2002.125015. View

Beaulieu C, Bourassa M, Brisson B, Jolicoeur P, De Beaumont L . Electrophysiological correlates of motor sequence learning. BMC Neurosci. 2014; 15:102. PMC: 4162918. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-15-102. View

BILODEAU E, Bilodeau I, Schumsky D . Some effects of introducing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice. J Exp Psychol. 1959; 58:142-4. DOI: 10.1037/h0040262. View

Botvinick M, Braver T, Barch D, Carter C, Cohen J . Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):624-52. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624. View

Carter C, Braver T, Barch D, Botvinick M, Noll D, Cohen J . Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science. 1998; 280(5364):747-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5364.747. View

Chan R, Immink M, Lushington K . The influence of focused-attention meditation states on the cognitive control of sequence learning. Conscious Cogn. 2017; 55:11-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.07.004. View

Chan R, Lushington K, Immink M . States of focused attention and sequential action: A comparison of single session meditation and computerised attention task influences on top-down control during sequence learning. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018; 191:87-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.003. View

10.

Cleeremans A, Destrebecqz A, Boyer M . Implicit learning: news from the front. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 2(10):406-16. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01232-7. View

11.

Danielmeier C, Ullsperger M . Post-error adjustments. Front Psychol. 2011; 2:233. PMC: 3173829. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00233. View

12.

Dominey P, Ventre-Dominey J, Broussolle E, Jeannerod M . Analogical transfer is effective in a serial reaction time task in Parkinson's disease: evidence for a dissociable form of sequence learning. Neuropsychologia. 1997; 35(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(96)00050-4. View

13.

Drugowitsch J, DeAngelis G, Angelaki D, Pouget A . Tuning the speed-accuracy trade-off to maximize reward rate in multisensory decision-making. Elife. 2015; 4:e06678. PMC: 4487075. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.06678. View

14.

Fabio R, Capri T, Romano M . From Controlled to Automatic Processes and Back Again: The Role of Contextual Features. Eur J Psychol. 2021; 15(4):773-788. PMC: 7909205. DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1746. View

15.

FITTS P . Cognitive aspects of information processing. 3. Set for speed versus accuracy. J Exp Psychol. 1966; 71(6):849-57. DOI: 10.1037/h0023232. View

16.

Friston K . The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009; 13(7):293-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005. View

17.

Friston K, Parr T, de Vries B . The graphical brain: Belief propagation and active inference. Netw Neurosci. 2018; 1(4):381-414. PMC: 5798592. DOI: 10.1162/NETN_a_00018. View

18.

Ghilardi M, Moisello C, Silvestri G, Ghez C, Krakauer J . Learning of a sequential motor skill comprises explicit and implicit components that consolidate differently. J Neurophysiol. 2008; 101(5):2218-29. PMC: 2681421. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01138.2007. View

19.

Goldfarb S, Wong-Lin K, Schwemmer M, Leonard N, Holmes P . Can post-error dynamics explain sequential reaction time patterns?. Front Psychol. 2012; 3:213. PMC: 3397377. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00213. View

20.

Hoffmann S, Falkenstein M . Predictive information processing in the brain: errors and response monitoring. Int J Psychophysiol. 2011; 83(2):208-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.015. View