Cited by 11Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyMotor Control and Adaptation

Toward a more sophisticated response representation in theories of medial frontal performance monitoring: the effects of motor similarity and motor asymmetries

Hochman, E. Y., Orr, J. M., Gehring, W. J.·2014·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Cognitive control in the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) is formulated in models that emphasize adaptive behavior driven by a computation evaluating the degree of difference between 2 conflicting responses. These functions are manifested by an event-related brain potential component coined the error-related negativity (ERN). We hypothesized that the ERN represents a regulative rather than evaluative pMFC process, exerted over the error motor representation, expediting the execution of a corrective response. We manipulated the motor representations of the error and the correct response to varying degrees. The ERN was greater when 1) the error response was more potent than when the correct response was more potent, 2) more errors were committed, 3) fewer and slower corrections were observed, and 4) the error response shared fewer motor features with the correct response. In their current forms, several prominent models of the pMFC cannot be reconciled with these findings. We suggest that a prepotent, unintended error is prone to reach the manual motor processor responsible for response execution before a nonpotent, intended correct response. In this case, the correct response is a correction and its execution must wait until the error is aborted. The ERN may reflect pMFC activity that aimed to suppress the error.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhs323

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hochman, E. Y., Orr, J. M., & Gehring, W. J.
Affiliations
  • Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Hochman, E. Y.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2012-10-12
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
414-425
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2155021098
Cited by
11
References
67
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
error-related negativity, posterior medial frontal cortex, cognitive control, response monitoring, motor asymmetry, response correction, error suppression, prepotent response, conflict monitoring, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Fingers, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Male, Models, Neurological, Motor Activity, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, 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