Cited by 84Free Will and AgencyNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Decoding the Dynamics of Action, Intention, and Error Detection for Conscious and Subliminal Stimuli

Open access
Charles, Lucie, King, Jean-Rémi, Dehaene, Stanislas·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

How do we detect our own errors, even before we receive any external feedback? One model hypothesizes that error detection results from the confrontation of two signals: a fast and unconscious motor code, based on a direct sensory–motor pathway; and a slower conscious intention code that computes the required response given the stimulus and task instructions. To test this theory and assess how the chain of cognitive processes leading to error detection is modulated by consciousness, we applied multivariate decoding methods to single-trial magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography data. Human participants performed a fast bimanual number comparison task on masked digits presented at threshold, such that about half of them remained unseen. By using both erroneous and correct trials, we designed orthogonal decoders for the actual response (left or right), the required response (left or right), and the response accuracy (correct or incorrect). While perceptual stimulus information and the actual response hand could be decoded on both conscious and non-conscious trials, the required response could only be decoded on conscious trials. Moreover, whether the current response was correct or incorrect could be decoded only when the target digits were conscious, at a time and with a certainty that varied with the amount of evidence in favor of the correct response. These results are in accordance with the proposed dual-route model of conscious versus nonconscious evidence accumulation, and suggest that explicit error detection is possible only when the brain computes a conscious representation of the desired response, distinct from the ongoing motor program.

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.2465-13.2014

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Early perceptual processing in the first 200 milliseconds can be similar or even identical between conscious and unconscious trials, but conscious perception is associated with late events such as the N2/P3b/P300 component.

    “Early perceptual processing in the first 200 milliseconds can be similar or even identical between conscious (i.e., reported) and unconscious (i.e., not reported) trials, [67][68][69] but conscious perception is associated with late events, such as the N2/P3b/P300 component of scalp-event-related potentials in humans.6,[70][71][72]”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charles, L., King, J.-R., & Dehaene, S.
Affiliations
Université Paris-Sud (FR)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2014-01-22
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
1158-1170
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2090774035
Cited by
84
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.70
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)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
error detection, consciousness, subliminal perception, dual-route model, evidence accumulation, single-trial decoding
MeSH terms
Brain, Consciousness, Electroencephalography, Humans, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Subliminal Stimulation, Magnetoencephalography, Intention, Support Vector Machine

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