Cardiac concomitants of performance monitoring: Context dependence and individual differences
Abstract
Feedback processing is an important aspect of cognitive control and decision-making. Several studies have shown that heart rate slows following feedback that indicates incorrect performance or loss of money. The current study was the first to investigate (1) whether this slowing reflects an evaluation of the valence of the outcome or a system that indicates that the feedback contains informative value, (2) whether the slowing is determined by the value of the outcome relative to the range of possible outcomes, and (3) whether highly anxious individuals have a hypersensitive feedback monitoring system. The results showed that heart rate only slows when the feedback is performance based. The information provided by negative feedback is processed in a context-sensitive manner, suggesting that heart rate slowing following feedback reflects a signal associated with informative value for subsequent performance adjustment. Highly anxious individuals showed larger heart rate slowing in response to feedback indicating high stakes, but they failed to respond to feedback in a context-sensitive manner. These results were interpreted to suggest that anxious individuals are generally more sensitive to performance outcomes. Heart rate changes following informative feedback proved to be a sensitive index of component processes associated with performance monitoring.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cardiac cycle duration is systematically modified by stimulus presentation and target detection, with a small but consistent change.
“In perceptual and cognitive paradigms, cardiac cycle duration is also systematically modified 31-36 with a small but consistent change of cardiac cycle duration induced by stimulus presentation and target detection.”
From Interoceptive rhythms in the brain (2023) · cites this paper as [32]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Crone, E. A., Bunge, S. A., de Klerk, P., & van der Molen, M. W.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Crone, Eveline A.
- Venue
- Cognitive Brain Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-106
- ISSN
- 0926-6410 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968360843
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognitive Brain Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- heart rate reduction, feedback processing, performance monitoring, outcome valence, informativeness, context sensitivity, individual differences, anxiety, cognitive control, decision-making, autonomic arousal
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Autonomic Nervous System, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Decision Making, Electrocardiography, Feedback, Female, Gambling, Heart, Heart Rate, Humans, Individuality, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review