Cited by 30Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and Perception

Dissociating early and late error signals in perceptual recognition

Open access
Wheeler, Mark E., Petersen, Steven E., Nelson, Steven M., Ploran, Elisabeth J., Velanova, Katerina·2008·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Decisions about object identity follow a period in which evidence is gathered and analyzed. Evidence can consist of both task-relevant external stimuli and internally generated goals and expectations. How the various pieces of information are gathered and filtered into meaningful evidence by the nervous system is largely unknown. Although object recognition is often highly efficient and accurate, errors are common. Errors may be related to faulty evidence gathering arising from early misinterpretations of incoming stimulus information. In addition, errors in task performance are known to elicit late corrective performance monitoring mechanisms that can optimize or otherwise adjust future behavior. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in an extended trial paradigm of object recognition to study whether we could identify performance-based signal modulations prior to and following the moment of recognition. The rationale driving the current report is that early modulations in fMRI activity may reflect faulty evidence gathering, whereas late modulations may reflect the presence of performance monitoring mechanisms. We tested this possibility by comparing fMRI activity on correct and error trials in regions of interest (ROIs) that were selected a priori. We found pre- and postrecognition accuracy-dependent modulation in different sets of a priori ROIs, suggesting the presence of dissociable error signals.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2008.20155

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Audley, R. J., & Pike, A. R. (1965). Some stochastic models of choice. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 18, 183-192.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wheeler, M. E., Petersen, S. E., Nelson, S. M., Ploran, E. J., & Velanova, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
2211-2225
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2060331434
Cited by
30
References
79
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • National Institutes of Health
  • McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS046424, NS46424)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
error signal, object recognition, perceptual identification, performance monitoring, evidence collection, recognition errors
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Visual Cortex, Recognition, Psychology, Feedback, 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