Exact(7)
The occurrence of such "partial errors" shows that incorrect response activations could be corrected online, before turning into overt errors.
Incorrect responses (i.e. overt errors), response failures (i.e. RT > 2000 ms) and premature responses (i.e. RT < 100 ms; regardless of accuracy) were excluded a priori from RT data analyses.
In the present study, we showed that, unlike overt errors, such "partial errors" are poorly consciously detected by participants, who could report only one third of their partial errors.
Such "partial errors" have been shown to induce a brain response initially reported for overt errors (Burle et al., 2008; Masaki & Segalowitz, 2004; Scheffers, Coles, Bernstein, Gehring, & Donchin, 1996; Vidal et al., 2000), called the "error negativity" (Falkenstein et al., 1991) or "error-related negativity" (Gehring et al., 1993).
First, overt errors are known to elicit two brain responses: early fronto-medial brain activity, known as the "error negativity" (Ne: Falkenstein, Hohnsbein, Hoormann, & Blanke, 1991; also termed the "error-related negativity," or ERN: Gehring, Goss, Coles, Meyer, & Donchin, 1993), followed by a later positive deflection termed the "error positivity" (Pe: Falkenstein et al., 1991).
On the other hand, it has been shown that cognitive adjustments do occur after partial errors, such as increased incorrect-response suppression (Burle et al., 2002) or post-partial-error slowing (although this is weaker than slowing after overt errors; Allain, Burle, Hasbroucq, & Vidal, 2009).
Concerning the latter comparison, as has already been reported (Allain, Carbonnell, Burle, Hasbroucq, & Vidal, 2004), the mean EMG burst has a smaller amplitude on overt errors than on pure-correct responses [ t(14) = 3.55, p <.002], whereas the initial slopes do not differ [ t(14) = 0.3, p =.77; see Fig. 2b, inset].
Similar(1)
In such trials, the incorrect response activation has been successfully suppressed, preventing an overt error (see Fig. 1a and the " Method" section for more details).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com