Factors Research on EEG Signal Analysis of the Willingness of Error Reporting

  • Hongxia LiEmail author
  • Nan Zhou
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10275)


Error events and near-miss events often appear in our daily life and are featured by strong concealment, which may become a hot-bed of major accidents. From the perspective of error control, enterprises need to integrate relevant information to deal with those events so as to reduce their negative effects to the enterprise. The source of error information is error report. In order to find the measures of improving the willingness for report errors, mixed experiments designed for both within the subject and in between two subjects have been applied, together with related potentials (ERPs), to explore the effect of different motivation mechanism on the mechanism of self error report. The research shows that as far as the willingness of error report is concerned, the positive monetary incentive (bonus) often leads to greater FRN and P300 amplitudes, compared to the negative stimulus (penalty), whereas positive motivation is more effective than negative motivation when provoking extrinsic motivation. Meanwhile, when increasing the self-selection right of error report, i.e., when voluntary error report system is applied, the inner motivation of error report will increase accordingly and more attention will be paid to the incentive. Hence the effect of incentive will be improved.


Error reporting intention Event related potentials Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation 


  1. 1.
    Frese, M., Keith, N.: Action errors, error management, and learning in organizations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 661–687 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhao, B.: Learning from errors: the role of context, emotion, and personality. J. Organ. Behav. 32(3), 435–463 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, X., Yang, J., Xie, Y.: Effects of the willingness to report employees’ mistakes - a study on the motivation, behavioral value and organizational climate. Cent. Univ. Finan. Econ. 01, 99–106 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greitemeyer, T., Weiner, B.: The asymmetrical consequences of reward and punishment on attributional judgments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 1371–1382 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tian, S., Qian, X., Li, H., et al.: Study on safety management incentive mechanism and safety de-incentive factors. J. Xi’an Univ. Sci. Technol. 22(1), 15–17 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yuan, X., Li, H., Tian, S.: Application of catastrophe theory in early warning of industrial accident. J. Xi’an Univ. Sci. Technol. 31(4), 482–488 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, L., Tan, S., Deng, J., et al.: Analysis of influencing factors of unsafe behavior of miners and control countermeasures. Xi’an Univ. Sci. Technol. 31(6), 794–798 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu, G.: Study on management of dangerous events based on three kinds of hazard sources. Xi’an University of Science and Technology (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tian, S., Sun, S., Yu, G., et al.: Study on factors affecting willingness to voluntary willingness of coal mines. Xi’an Univ. Sci. Technol. 34(5), 517–522 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma, Q., Fu, H., Bian, J.: Neural industrial engineering: a new stage of industrial engineering development. Manag. World 6, 015 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, Q., Wang, X.: From neuroeconomics and neuromarketing to neural management. Chin. J. Manag. 20(3), 129–132 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oliveira, F.T.P., McDonald, J.J., Goodman, D.F.M.: Performance monitoring in the anterior cingulate is not all error related: expectancy deviation and the representation of action-outcome associations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19(12), 1994–2004 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donchin, E., Kramer, A., Wickens, C.: Applications of event-related brain potentials to problems in engineering psychology. In: Psychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications. Guilford Press, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kok, A.: On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 38(3), 557–577 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leng, Y., Zhou, X.: Modulation of the brain activity in outcome evaluation by interpersonal relationship: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia 48(2), 448–455 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukushima, H., Hiraki, K.: Perceiving an opponent’s loss: gender-related differences in the medial-frontal negativity. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 1(2), 149–157 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Itagaki, S., Katayama, J.: Self-relevant criteria determine the evaluation of outcomes induced by others. NeuroReport 19(3), 383–387 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holroyd, C.B., Hajcak, G., Larsen, J.T.: The good, the bad and the neutral: electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli. Brain Res. 1105(1), 93–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jessup, R.K., Busemeyer, J.R., Brown, J.W.: Error effects in anterior cingulate cortex reverse when error likelihood is high. J. Neurosci. 30(9), 3467–3472 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alexander, W.H., Brown, J.W.: Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor. Nat. Neurosci. 14(10), 1338–1344 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou, Z., Yu, R., Zhou, X.: To do or not to do? Action enlarges the FRN and P300 effects in outcome evaluation. Neuropsychologia 48(12), 3606–3613 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hansenne, M.: The p300 cognitive event-related potential. I. Theoretical and psychobiologic perspectives. Neurophysiologie clinique = Clin. Neurophysiol. 30(4), 191–210 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDowell, K., Kerick, S.E., Santa Maria, D.L., et al.: Aging, physical activity, and cognitive processing: an examination of P300. Neurobiol. Aging 24(4), 597–606 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Polich, J.: Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 118(10), 2128–2148 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Furdea, A., Halder, S., Krusienski, D.J., et al.: An auditory oddball (P300) spelling system for brain-computer interfaces. Psychophysiology 46(3), 617–625 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gray, H.M., Ambady, N., Lowenthal, W.T., et al.: P300 as an index of attention to self-relevant stimuli. J. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 40(2), 216–224 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Watter, S., Geffen, G.M., Geffen, L.B.: The n-back as a dual-task: P300 morphology under divided attention. Psychophysiology 38(06), 998–1003 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu, Y., Zhou, X.: The P300 and reward valence, magnitude, and expectancy in outcome evaluation. Brain Res. 1286, 114–122 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferdinand, N.K., Kray, J.: Age-related changes in processing positive and negative feedback: is there a positivity effect for older adults? Biol. Psychol. 94(2), 235–241 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhao, B., Olivera, F.: Error reporting in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31(4), 1012–1030 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., et al.: Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: a two-study replication. J. Appl. Psychol. 90(6), 1228 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dyck, C.: Putting errors to good use: error management culture in organizations. In: KLI (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gold, A., Gronewold, U., Salterio, S.E.: Error management in audit firms: error climate, type, and originator. Acc. Rev. 89(1), 303–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Xi’an University of Science and TechnologyXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations