LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rochet, N.; Spieser, L.; Casini, L.; Hasbroucq, T.; Burle, B. (2013)
Publisher: Springer US
Journal: Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RC0321, Cognitive control, [ SCCO.PSYC ] Cognitive science/Psychology, BF, [SCCO.PSYC] Cognitive science/Psychology, [ SCCO.NEUR ] Cognitive science/Neuroscience, Behavioral Neuroscience, Action awareness, Error detection, Cognitive Neuroscience, Article, [SCCO.NEUR] Cognitive science/Neuroscience
International audience; Appropriate reactions to erroneous actions are es-sential to keeping behavior adaptive. Erring, however, is notan all-or-none process: electromyographic (EMG) recordingsof the responding muscles have revealed that covert incorrectresponse activations (termed “partial errors”) occur on a pro-portion of overtly correct trials. The occurrence of such “par-tial errors” shows that incorrect response activations could becorrected online, before turning into overt errors. In the pres-ent study, we showed that, unlike overt errors, such “partialerrors” are poorly consciously detected by participants, whocould report only one third of their partial errors. Two param-eters of the partial errors were found to predict detection: thesurface of the incorrect EMG burst (larger for detected) andthe correction time (between the incorrect and correct EMGonsets; longer for detected). These two parameters providedindependent information. The correct(ive) responses associat-ed with detected partial errors were larger than the “pure-correct” ones, and this increase was likely a consequence,rather than a cause, of the detection. The respective impactsof the two parameters predicting detection (incorrect surfaceand correction time), along with the underlying physiologicalprocesses subtending partial-error detection, are discussed.