Missing the Target: the Neural Processing Underlying the Omission Error
- 194 Downloads
The omissions are infrequent errors consisting in missing responses to the target stimuli. This is the first study aimed at investigating the brain activities associated with omissions in a decision-making task. We recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in 12 subjects which reported a suitable number of omissions in a visual go/no-go task. We investigated both the pre- and post-stimulus brain activities associated with correct and omitted trials. The electrical neuroimaging technique (BESA) was adopted to extract the anterior insula (aIns) activity associated with the prefrontal P2 component (pP2) peaking about 300 ms after the stimulus and reflecting the stimulus–response mapping process. We found that omissions were predicted by a delayed onset (about half a second) of two pre-stimulus components, i.e. the prefrontal negativity (pN) and the Bereitschaftspotential (BP) associated with the top-down control and the motor preparation, respectively. Further, at the post-stimulus stage the omission trials were characterized by the suppression of the pP2 (and the aIns activity as measured by BESA). No differences between omission and correct trials were detected at the level of the P1 and N1 visual components, as well as the P3. These findings would suggest that omissions are attentional lapsebased errors, as indicated by the delayed brain preparation before the stimulus onset. The reduced cortical activity during the preparation phase did not affect the visual processing; in contrast the stimulus categorization process at the level of the anterior insula did not start at all, resulting in the inability to reach a decision.
KeywordsERPs Prefrontal negativity (pN) Bereitschaftspotential (BP) Prefrontal P2 (pP2) Anterior insula Omission error
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Santa Lucia Foundation and were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Birbaumer, N., Elbert, T., Canavan, A., & Rockstroh, B. (1990). Slow potentials of the cerebral cortex and behavior. Physiol Rev, (70), 1–41.Google Scholar
- Di Russo F, Pitzalis S (2013). EEG-fMRI combination for the study of visual perception and spatial attention. In: Cognitive electrophysiology of attention: signals of the mind, Academic Press, London pp. 58–70Google Scholar
- Falkenstein M, Hohnsbein J, & Hoormann J (1994). Event-related potential correlates of errors in reaction tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 44:287–296.Google Scholar
- Luck SJ (2004). Ten simple rules for designing and interpreting ERP experiments. In: Handy TC (ed) Event-related potentials: a methods handbook, Cambridge, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 104:199–206Google Scholar
- Perri RL, Berchicci M, Lucci G, Spinelli D, Di Russo F (2015a) Why do we make mistakes? Neurocognitive processes during the preparation-perception-action cycle and error-detection. Neuroimage 113:320–328Google Scholar
- Perri RL, Berchicci M, Lucci G, Spinelli D, Di Russo F (2015b) The premotor role of the prefrontal cortex in response consistency. Neuropsychology 29(5):767–775Google Scholar
- Perri RL, Berchicci M, Lucci G, Spinelli D, Di Russo F (2016). How the brain prevents a second error in a perceptual decision–making task. Sci Reports 6.Google Scholar
- Schiffman HR (1990). Sensation and perception: an integrated approach, John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar