Cited by 284Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyMotor Control and Adaptation

Decision processes in human performance monitoring

Open access
Steinhauser, Marco, Yeung, Nick·2010·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The ability to detect and compensate for errors is crucial in producing effective, goal-directed behavior. Human error processing is reflected in two event-related brain potential components, the error-related negativity (Ne/ERN) and error positivity (Pe), but the functional significance of both components remains unclear. Our approach was to consider error detection as a decision process involving an evaluation of available evidence that an error has occurred against an internal criterion. This framework distinguishes two fundamental stages of error detection—accumulating evidence (input), and reaching a decision (output)—that should be differentially affected by changes in internal criterion. Predictions from this model were tested in a brightness discrimination task that required human participants to signal their errors, with incentives varied to encourage participants to adopt a high or low criterion for signaling their errors. Whereas the Ne/ERN was unaffected by this manipulation, the Pe varied consistently with criterion: A higher criterion was associated with larger Pe amplitude for signaled errors, suggesting that the Pe reflects the strength of accumulated evidence. Across participants, Pe amplitude was predictive of changes in behavioral criterion as estimated through signal detection theory analysis. Within participants, Pe amplitude could be estimated robustly with multivariate machine learning techniques and used to predict error signaling behavior both at the level of error signaling frequencies and at the level of individual signaling responses. These results suggest that the Pe, rather than the Ne/ERN, is closely related to error detection, and specifically reflects the accumulated evidence that an error has been committed.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1899-10.2010

Cites

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 [192]

    The Results (ERP analysis; page unavailable) report that Pe is enhanced after errors compared with correct responses, and the Discussion links it to error detection and judgments of response accuracy. But the Discussion characterizes Pe as reflecting evidence before a categorical accuracy decision, rather than later-stage appraisal; it does not establish that Pe indexes motivational significance. Confidence is addressed indirectly through the strength of error evidence, not a direct confidence measure. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Pe is posited to reflect the post-decisional evidence accumulation process that is sensitive to decision accuracy, decision confidence, and subsequent adaptation in behavior.

    “The Pe is posited to reflect the post‐decisional evidence accumulation process that is sensitive to decision accuracy, decision confidence, and subsequent adaptation in behavior (Desender et al. 2021; Steinhauser and Yeung 2010).”

    From Reaction Time Variability and Electrophysiological Indices of Performance Monitoring in Youths With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (2026) · cites this paper as Steinhauser and Yeung 2010

    The Introduction describes the Pe as reflecting accumulated evidence used to judge response accuracy, and the Results show that Pe activity predicts subsequent error-signaling responses. The Methods link a high error-signaling criterion to confidence that an error occurred. However, the paper does not establish that the Pe tracks decision confidence directly or predicts subsequent behavioral adaptation; the Discussion presents remedial actions only as a possible consequence of the error evidence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Steinhauser and Yeung proposed that error awareness emerges when internal evidence for an error accumulates until it crosses a decision threshold; in this model, Pe amplitude reflects the amount of accumulated evidence for an error rather than the mere presence or absence of an error-awareness response.

    “Steinhauser and Yeung proposed that error awareness emerges when internal evidence for an error accumulates until it crosses a decision threshold; in this model, Pe amplitude reflects the amount of accumulated evidence for an error rather than the mere presence or absence of an error-awareness response [192,204].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 284

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Falkenstein M Hohnsbein J Hoormann J Blanke L 1990 Effects of errors in choice reaction tasks on the ERP under focused and divided attention Psychophysiological brain research Brunia CHM Gaillard AWK Kok A 192 195 Tilburg, The Netherlands Tilburg University Press

Authors
Steinhauser, M., & Yeung, N.
Affiliations
University of Konstanz (DE)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2010-11-17
Volume
30
Issue
46
Pages
15643-15653
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2054036686
Cited by
284
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • National Institutes of Health
  • John Fell Fund, University of Oxford (071/463)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH062196)
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 detection, error-related negativity, error positivity, evidence accumulation, decision-making, signal detection theory, brightness discrimination, human performance monitoring, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Decision Making, Discrimination Learning, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, 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