The power of frontal midline theta and post‐error slowing to predict performance recovery: Evidence for compensatory mechanisms
Abstract
Past studies utilizing cognitive control tasks have noted that trials following errors are characterized by slowed reaction time. Despite the assumption long held by researchers that this slowing is compensatory (in the service of post-error performance recovery), studies consistently show that post-error trials are no more accurate than post-correct trials. As a result, it has recently been proposed that post-error slowing (PES) is merely part of an orienting response that serves no task-relevant cognitive control purpose. Frontal midline theta (FMθ) oscillations represent another potential compensatory mechanism serving cognitive control processes, yet past studies relying on ERPs have failed to find an association between FMθ and post-error accuracy. The present study investigated the potentially adaptive role of PES and FMθ oscillations during a flanker task using trial-by-trial comparisons. Results indicated that error-related FMθ oscillations signal the need for enhanced top-down cognitive control and that PES supports cognitive control by providing the added time needed to achieve greater confidence in judgment. Overall, findings provide convergent evidence that both error-related FMθ and PES predict performance recovery following errors.
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?
The ERN and error-related theta are likely two parts of the same complex of brain signals that help the individual to answer 'What just happened?' and 'What can I do about it?' in response to the same events.
“The ERN and error-related theta are likely two parts of the same complex of brain signals that help the individual to not only answer the question ' What just happened? ' but also ' What can I do about it? ' in response to the same events (Valadez & Simons, 2018).”
From Foster care intervention protects cognitive control skills in young adults exposed to institutional rearing (2026) · cites this paper as Valadez & Simons, 2018
Cites
<i>Stan</i> : A Probabilistic Programming Language
Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M., Guo, J., Li, P., & Riddell, A. (2017) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01 · Cited by 7,754 · see citing works
Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control
Cavanagh, J. F., & Frank, M. J. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012 · Cited by 2,726 · cited 6× · see citing works
“…have much faster RTs than correct trials, Hajcak et al. (2003b) matched correct trials on RT to control for posterror slowing that is simply due to regression toward the mean. and communicate top-down control across broad networks (Cavanagh & Frank, 2014; Cavanagh, Zambrano-Vazquez, & Allen, 2012).”
InfluentialTheta EEG dynamics of the error-related negativity
Trujillo, L. T., & Allen, J. J. B. (2007) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2006.11.009 · Cited by 314 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This interpretation seems plausible given that Trujillo and Allen (2007) found that the majority of error-related FMu activity was not phase-locked to the error response.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beatty, P. J., Buzzell, G. A., Roberts, D. M., & McDonald, C. G. (2020) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00792-7 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
LoTemplio, S. B., Lopes, C. L., McDonnell, A. S., Scott, E. E., Payne, B. R., & Strayer, D. L. (2023) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1150244 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Valadez, E. A., Jopling, E., Macera, E., Wade, M., Zeanah, C. H., Nelson, C. A., & Fox, N. A. (2026) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579426101928
Self-citation
- Authors
- Valadez, E. A., & Simons, R. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- Corresponding author
- Valadez, Emilio A.
- ORCID
- Valadez, Emilio A.
- Venue
- Psychophysiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09-28
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8986
- OpenAlex
- W2759173271
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Keywords
- post-error slowing, cognitive control, compensatory mechanisms, flanker task, top-down control, reaction time
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Brain, Cognition, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Theta Rhythm, 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
