Cited by 236Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyMotor Control and Adaptation

Error awareness revisited: Accumulation of multimodal evidence from central and autonomic nervous systems

Open access
Wessel, Jan R., Danielmeier, Claudia, Ullsperger, Markus·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

The differences between erroneous actions that are consciously perceived as errors and those that go unnoticed have recently become an issue in the field of performance monitoring. In EEG studies, error awareness has been suggested to influence the error positivity (Pe) of the response-locked event-related brain potential, a positive voltage deflection prominent approximately 300 msec after error commission, whereas the preceding error-related negativity (ERN) seemed to be unaffected by error awareness. Erroneous actions, in general, have been shown to promote several changes in ongoing autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, yet such investigations have only rarely taken into account the question of subjective error awareness. In the first part of this study, heart rate, pupillometry, and EEG were recorded during an antisaccade task to measure autonomic arousal and activity of the CNS separately for perceived and unperceived errors. Contrary to our expectations, we observed differences in both Pe and ERN with respect to subjective error awareness. This was replicated in a second experiment, using a modified version of the same task. In line with our predictions, only perceived errors provoke the previously established post-error heart rate deceleration. Also, pupil size yields a more prominent dilatory effect after an erroneous saccade, which is also significantly larger for perceived than unperceived errors. On the basis of the ERP and ANS results as well as brain–behavior correlations, we suggest a novel interpretation of the implementation and emergence of error awareness in the brain. In our framework, several systems generate input signals (e.g., ERN, sensory input, proprioception) that influence the emergence of error awareness, which is then accumulated and presumably reflected in later potentials, such as the Pe.

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.2011.21635

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • In healthy participants, Pe is typically larger after erroneous than correct responses and has been linked to later-stage error appraisal, awareness of mistakes, motivational significance, and confidence in response accuracy.

    “In healthy participants, Pe is typically larger after erroneous than correct responses and has been linked to later-stage error appraisal, awareness of mistakes, motivational significance, and confidence in response accuracy [187,188,189,190,191,192,193].”

    From Electrophysiological Correlates of Cognitive Dysfunction in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): A Systematic and Mechanistic Review of EEG, ERP, and QEEG Evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [193]

    The EEG results (page unavailable) report a larger Pe after errors than correct responses, particularly for perceived errors. The General Discussion links the later Pe to evaluating performance accuracy, supporting the appraisal and awareness portions. Our copy does not link Pe to motivational significance; its measure of subjective certainty is instead associated with ERN amplitude. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Siri-Maria Kamp, Emanuel Donchin. 2014. ERP and pupil responses to deviance in an oddball paradigm. Psychophysiology n/a- n/a. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Takuya Sueyoshi, Fumie Sugimoto, Jun'ichi Katayama, Hirokata Fukushima. 2014. Neural correlates of error processing reflect individual differences in interoceptive sensitivity. International Journal of Psychophysiology 94, 278-286. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  3. Sandy Siegert, Maria Herrojo Ruiz, Christof Brücke, Julius Huebl, Gerd-Helge Schneider, Markus Ullsperger, Andrea A. Kühn. 2014. Error signals in the subthalamic nucleus are related to post-error slowing in patients with Parkinson's disease. Cortex 60, 103-120. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Tanja Endrass, Markus Ullsperger. 2014. Specificity of performance monitoring changes in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 46, 124-138. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  5. Leonie Koban, Gilles Pourtois. 2014. Brain systems underlying the affective and social monitoring of actions: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 46, 71-84. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Jessica M. Phillips, Stefan Everling. 2014. Event-related potentials associated with performance monitoring in non-human primates. NeuroImage 97, 308-320. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Ian H. Robertson. 2014. A right hemisphere role in cognitive reserve. Neurobiology of Aging 35, 1375-1385. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Markus Ullsperger, Adrian G. Fischer, Roland Nigbur, Tanja Endrass. 2014. Neural mechanisms and temporal dynamics of performance monitoring. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18, 259-267. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. David Clewett, Andrej Schoeke, Mara Mather. 2014. Locus coeruleus neuromodulation of memories encoded during negative or unexpected action outcomes. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 111, 65-70. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Rosa Grützmann, Tanja Endrass, Julia Klawohn, Norbert Kathmann. 2014. Response accuracy rating modulates ERN and Pe amplitudes. Biological Psychology 96, 1-7. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Yigal Agam, Jennifer L. Greenberg, Marlisa Isom, Martha J. Falkenstein, Eric Jenike, Sabine Wilhelm, Dara S. Manoach. 2014. Aberrant error processing in relation to symptom severity in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A multimodal neuroimaging study. NeuroImage: Clinical 5, 141-151. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  12. Adrian G. Fischer, Markus Ullsperger. 2013. Real and Fictive Outcomes Are Processed Differently but Converge on a Common Adaptive Mechanism. Neuron 79, 1243-1255. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Stephan A. Verschoor, Michiel Spapé, Szilvia Biro, Bernhard Hommel. 2013. From outcome prediction to action selection: developmental change in the role of action-effect bindings. Developmental Science n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Lucie Charles, Filip Van Opstal, Sébastien Marti, Stanislas Dehaene. 2013. Distinct brain mechanisms for conscious versus subliminal error detection. NeuroImage 73, 80-94. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  15. Antonia N. Kaczkurkin. 2013. The effect of manipulating task difficulty on error-related negativity in individuals with obsessive- compulsive symptoms. Biological Psychology . [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wessel, J. R., Danielmeier, C., & Ullsperger, M.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research (DE)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2011-10-01
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
3021-3036
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2163936675
Cited by
236
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
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 awareness, error positivity, error-related negativity, performance monitoring, pupil dilation, autonomic arousal, antisaccade task, brain-behavior relationship
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Autonomic Nervous System, Awareness, Blood Pressure, Central Nervous System, Electrocardiography, Electroencephalography, Electrooculography, Evoked Potentials, Eye Movements, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Pupil, Reaction Time, Saccades, 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