The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinct brain mechanisms for conscious versus subliminal error detection
Open accessAbstract
Metacognition, the ability to monitor one's own cognitive processes, is frequently assumed to be univocally associated with conscious processing. However, some monitoring processes, such as those associated with the evaluation of one's own performance, may conceivably be sufficiently automatized to be deployed non-consciously. Here, we used simultaneous electro- and magneto-encephalography (EEG/MEG) to investigate how error detection is modulated by perceptual awareness of a masked target digit. The Error-Related Negativity (ERN), an EEG component occurring ~100 ms after an erroneous response, was exclusively observed on conscious trials: regardless of masking strength, the amplitude of the ERN showed a step-like increase when the stimulus became visible. Nevertheless, even in the absence of an ERN, participants still managed to detect their errors at above-chance levels under subliminal conditions. Error detection on conscious trials originated from the posterior cingulate cortex, while a small response to non-conscious errors was seen in dorsal anterior cingulate. We propose the existence of two distinct brain mechanisms for metacognitive judgements: a conscious all-or-none process of single-trial response evaluation, and a non-conscious statistical assessment of confidence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This framework predicts that, while some signals within modular pathways may persist under non-conscious conditions, global top-down signals related to the content of working memory depend on the availability of a conscious model.”
From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Charles et al., 2013
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The Pe (described in the previous section as being a candidate for postdecisional evidence accumulation) has been linked to error awareness and shown to covary with subjective confidence, whereas the ERN and its pMFC source are thought to also operate unconsciously (Charles et al. 2013).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Charles et al. 2013
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This implies that forms of propositional confidence that remain restricted to a particular sensorimotor pathway and are not globally shared may underpin nonconscious forms of metacognition (Charles et al. 2013, Logan & Crump 2010).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Charles et al. 2013
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · Cited by 8,540 · cited 2×
“Therefore, analysis of variance was performed in R software using a linear mixed-effects model ((Baayen et al., 2008) R package lme4) which allowed us to include all data available (unbalanced design) and still encompass repeated-measures.”
Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 · Cited by 8,496 · cited 1×
“To detect significance differences between error and correct conditions for each type of sensor, we used a cluster-based non-parametric t-test with Monte Carlo randomization provided in the Fieldtrip software (Maris and Oostenveld, 2007).”
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351 · cited 2×
“, 2001), reinforcement learning (Holroyd and Coles, 2002) and conflict processing (Botvinick et al., 2001; Veen and Carter, 2002).”
Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.4.679 · Cited by 4,027 · cited 4×
“…difference between a prediction and an observed outcome: either an ongoing response that departs from the one intended given the perceived stimulus (Alexander and Brown, 2011), or an anticipated reward that departs from the usual one expected when the response is correct (Holroyd and Coles, 2002).”
InfluentialA neural system for error detection and compensation
Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00586.x · Cited by 2,862 · cited 2×
“The ERN is an event-related potential that peaks on fronto-central electrodes 50 to 100 ms after making an erroneous response; it is easily observed in EEG recordings (Dehaene et al., 1994; Falkenstein et al., 2000; Gehring et al., 1993), and a similar, though harder to detect MEG component has been reported (Keil et…”
Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing
Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 · Cited by 2,573 · cited 2×
“As an extreme case, in blindsight, a patient may deny any conscious experience, while remaining able to perform way above chance in simple tasks on stimuli presented in their blind hemi-field (Kentridge and Heywood, 1999; Weiskrantz, 1996).”
Self-citationConscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J.-P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007 · Cited by 2,067
Self-citationThe neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity
Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.4.931 · Cited by 1,924 · cited 4×
“E urope PM C Funders A uthor M anuscripts E urope PM C Funders A uthor M anuscripts This model is compatible both with the view of the ERN as a conflict monitoring system (Veen and Carter, 2002; Yeung et al., 2004) or a comparison process (Bernstein et al., 1995; Falkenstein et al., 2000).”
InfluentialERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: A tutorial
Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., Christ, S., & Hohnsbein, J. (2000) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0511(99)00031-9 · Cited by 1,442 · cited 5×
“…peaks on fronto-central electrodes 50 to 100 ms after making an erroneous response; it is easily observed in EEG recordings (Dehaene et al., 1994; Falkenstein et al., 2000; Gehring et al., 1993), and a similar, though harder to detect MEG component has been reported (Keil et al., 2010; Miltner…”
InfluentialCerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Cohen, L., Bihan, D. L., Mangin, J.-F., Poline, J.-B., & Rivière, D. (2001) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/89551 · Cited by 1,305 · cited 2×
“, 2007), but subliminal primes can modulate visual (Dehaene et al., 2001), semantic (Van den Bussche et al.”
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443 · Cited by 1,408
“Among currently available methods, we think meta-d′ is the best measure of metacognitive sensitivity, and it is quickly gaining popularity (e.g., Baird et al., 2013; Charles et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013; McCurdy et al., 2013).”
MethodConscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis
Mashour, G. A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J.-P., & Dehaene, S. (2020) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026 · Cited by 1,164
“button but only if the stimulus that led to the error was consciously perceived, thus allowing a conscious top-down intention signal to be compared with the ongoing action (Charles et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSeth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-022-00587-4 · Cited by 880
What is consciousness, and could machines have it?
Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan8871 · Cited by 855
Self-citationNeurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior
Ullsperger, M., Danielmeier, C., & Jocham, G. (2014) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00041.2012 · Cited by 634
“Further research is needed to elucidate the significance of the recently reported additional activity in PCC (1, 83).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Charles, L., Van Opstal, F., Marti, S., & Dehaene, S.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris-Sud (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Charles, Lucie
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 73
- Pages
- 80-94
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5635965
- OpenAlex
- W2007452435
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 12.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Direction Générale de l'Armement
- European Research Council
- INSERM
- CEA
- the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
- the Bettencourt-Schueller foundation
- the Région île-de-France
- Research Foundation — Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen).
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- error detection, metacognition, subliminal perception, error-related negativity, posterior cingulate cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, perceptual awareness, treatment response assessment, confidence estimation
- MeSH terms
- Behavior, Brain, Cognition, Consciousness, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Software, Subliminal Stimulation, Visual Perception, Magnetoencephalography, Signal Detection, Psychological, Young Adult
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
