December 2022
Volume 22, Issue 14
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2022
Exploring the Functional Role of Post-Error Adjustments during a Flanker Task
Author Affiliations
  • Joe Opdenaker
    Texas Tech University
  • Ema Shamasdin Bidiwala
    UC Berkeley
  • Miranda Scolari
    UC Berkeley
Journal of Vision December 2022, Vol.22, 4380. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.4380
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Joe Opdenaker, Ema Shamasdin Bidiwala, Miranda Scolari; Exploring the Functional Role of Post-Error Adjustments during a Flanker Task. Journal of Vision 2022;22(14):4380. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.4380.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

After committing an error, people may slow down to avoid committing a subsequent error. This post-error adjustment, referred to as post-error slowing (PES), may be indicative of adaptive compensation geared towards improving performance, and as such, is sometimes coupled with post-error improvement in accuracy (PIA). However, the co-occurrence of these two phenomena has been inconsistent, leaving open questions whether PES serves a functional purpose. Here, we first reanalyzed data from a previous flanker study (N = 40) to investigate whether post-error adjustments co-occur with improvements in performance (functional) or not (non-functional) by comparing RT and accuracy between post-correct and post-error trials. Furthermore, by using a flanker task with absent, congruent, or incongruent distractors, we can explore whether cognitive demand differences yield different effects on PES and PIA. After excluding poor performers, we observed a significant PIA effect, suggesting that functional adjustments were applied uniformly across task conditions. However, this was not accompanied by PES, as expected, but instead, a marginally significant post-error speeding. This result provides evidence that PES and PIA are distinct phenomena. However, an alternative possibility is that a lengthy cue period and intertrial interval obscured our ability to observe PES. We therefore conducted a new, second experiment with both durations reduced to increase time pressure and thus the likelihood of observing slowing after an error. Nonetheless, preliminary data (N = 16) produced a similar post-error speeding as we observed in Experiment 1, with an additional interaction between post-response condition and flanker condition: post-error speeding was restricted to absent- and compatible-distractor trials and undetected for incongruent-distractor trials. In sum, these data suggest that participants may monitor errors to make broad, functionally appropriate adjustments on the subsequent trial, that do not consistently necessitate slowing.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×