Evidence for different types of errors being associated with different types of post-error changes

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1
Fig 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    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.

References

  1. 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.

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Laming, D. (1968). Information theory of choice-reaction times. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Laming, D. (1979). Autocorrelation of choice-reaction times. Acta psychologica, 43(5), 381-412.

  13. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Quantitative Methods For Psychology 2, 61-64.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Notebaert, W., et al. (2009a). "Post-error slowing: An orienting account." Cognition 111(2): 275-279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stone, M. (1960). "Models for choice-reaction time." Psychometrika 25, 251-260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams, P., Heathcote, A., Nesbitt, K., & Eidels, A. (2016). Post-error recklessness and the hot hand. Judgment and Decision making, 11, 174-184.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karlye Damaso.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

ESM 1

(DOCX 339 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Choice behavior
  • Cognitive control and automaticity