Errors in simple choice tasks result in systematic changes in the response time and accuracy of subsequent trials. We propose that there are at least two different causes of choice errors – response speed and evidence quality, which result in different types of post-error changes. We explore these differences in types of errors and post-error changes in two recognition memory experiments with speed versus accuracy emphasis conditions that differentially produce response-speed and evidence-quality errors. Under conditions that give rise to more response-speed errors, we find evidence of traditional post-error slowing. Under conditions that give rise to evidence-quality errors, we find evidence of post-error speeding. We propose a broadening of theories of cognitive control to encompass maladaptive as well as adaptive strategies, and discuss implications for the use of post-error changes to measure cognitive control.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Oddball tasks have been used to provide further support for an orientation component to post-error slowing, as when irrelevant auditory cues are provided, responses following novel cues are slower and less accurate than responses following non-novel cue (but not slower and less accurate than uncued responses, suggesting the benefit of a cue may be diminished if the cue is novel; Parmentier & Andres, 2010). Parmentier, Vasilev, and Andres (2019) also found an interaction effect for post-error slowing and auditory cue type (novel vs. non-novel), further suggesting an orientation effect may contribute to post-error slowing for tasks with auditory cues.
Ben-Haim, M. S., Williams, P., Howard, Z., Mama, Y., Eidels, A., Algom, D. (2016) The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content. J. Vis. Exp. (112), e53720, https://doi.org/10.3791/53720.
Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological Review, 113, 700–765. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.700
Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice reaction time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002
Crump, M. J., & Logan, G. D. (2012). Prevention and Correction in Post-Error Performance: An Ounce of Prevention, a Pound of Cure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 692. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030014
Dutilh, G., Forstmann, B. U., Vandekerckhove, J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2013). A diffusion model account of age differences in posterror slowing. Psychology and Aging, 28, 64-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029875
Dutilh, G., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., van der Maas, H. L. J., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). How to measure post-error slowing: A confound and a simple solution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 208-216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.04.001
Dyson, B. J., Sundvall, J., Forder, L., & Douglas, S. (2018). Failure generates impulsivity only when outcomes cannot be controlled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 1483-1487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000557
Hajcak, G., & Simons, R. F. (2002). Error-related brain activity in obsessive–compulsive undergraduates. Psychiatry research, 110, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(02)00034-3
Heathcote, A., Lin, Y. S., Reynolds, A., Strickland, L., Gretton, M., & Matzke, D. (2019). Dynamic models of choice. Behavior research methods, 51, 961-985. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1067-y
Jentzsch I., Dudschig C. (2009). Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747021080224065
Laming, D. (1968). Information theory of choice-reaction times. New York: Academic Press.
Laming, D. (1979). Autocorrelation of choice-reaction times. Acta psychologica, 43(5), 381-412.
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Quantitative Methods For Psychology 2, 61-64.
Notebaert, W., et al. (2009a). "Post-error slowing: An orienting account." Cognition 111(2): 275-279.
Núňez Castellar, E., Kühn, S., Fias, W., & Notebaert, W. (2010). Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 270-278. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.10.2.270
Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Opstal, F. V., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009b). Post-error slowing: An orienting account. Cognition, 111(2), 275-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.002
Osth, A., Bora, B., Dennis, S. & Heathcote, A. (2017). Diffusion vs. linear ballistic accumulation: Different models, different conclusions about the slope of the zROC in recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 36-61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.003
Parmentier, F. B., & Andrés, P. (2010). The involuntary capture of attention by sound. Experimental Psychology, 57, 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000009
Parmentier, F. B., Vasilev, M. R., & Andrés, P. (2019). Surprise as an explanation to auditory novelty distraction and post-error slowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 192-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000497
Rabbitt, P. (1969). Psychological refractory delay and response-stimulus interval duration in serial, choice-response tasks. Acta Psychologica, 30, 195-219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90051-1
Rabbitt, P., & Rodgers, B. (1977). What does a man do after he makes an error? an analysis of response programming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 727-743. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747708400645
Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Vyas, S. M. (1970). An elementary preliminary taxonomy for some errors in laboratory choice RT tasks. Acta Psychologica, 33, 56-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(70)90122-8
Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L. & Brown, S. (2014). The Hare and the Tortoise: Emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 40, 1226-1243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036801
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. (1998). Modelling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00067
Stone, M. (1960). "Models for choice-reaction time." Psychometrika 25, 251-260.
Verbruggen, F., Chambers, C. D., Lawrence, N. S., & McLaren, I. P. (2017). Winning and losing: Effects on impulsive action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000284
Williams, P., Heathcote, A., Nesbitt, K., & Eidels, A. (2016). Post-error recklessness and the hot hand. Judgment and Decision making, 11, 174-184.
Karlye Damaso and Paul Williams would like to acknowledge the Department of Education and Training for provisions of Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarships during periods of manuscript preparation. Andrew Heathcote would like to acknowledge Australian Research Council grant DP160101891 for supporting his work on this project.
The data used in this manuscript have been made available on OSF. The data were not from preregistered experiments.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Karlye Damaso and Paul Williams share first author position.
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
Cite this article
Damaso, K., Williams, P. & Heathcote, A. Evidence for different types of errors being associated with different types of post-error changes. Psychon Bull Rev 27, 435–440 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01675-w
- Choice behavior
- Cognitive control and automaticity