scholarly journals History of one’s own performance modulates evaluative processing of another’s action outcomes, but not vice versa

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chikara Ishii ◽  
Jun’ichi Katayama

AbstractIn action monitoring, i.e., evaluating an outcome of our behavior, a reward prediction error signal is calculated as the difference between actual and predicted outcomes and is used to adjust future behavior. Previous studies demonstrate that this signal, which is reflected by an event-related brain potential called feedback-related negativity (FRN), occurs in response to not only one's own outcomes, but also those of others. However, it is still unknown if predictions of different actors' performance interact with each other. Thus, we investigated how predictions from one’s own and another’s performance history affect each other by manipulating the task difficulty for participants themselves and their partners independently. Pairs of participants performed a time estimation task, randomly switching the roles of actor and observer from trial to trial. Results show that the history of the other’s performance did not modulate the amplitude of the FRN for the evaluation of one’s own outcomes. In contrast, the amplitude of the observer FRN for the other’s outcomes differed according to the frequency of one’s own action outcomes. In conclusion, the monitoring system tracks the histories of one’s own and observed outcomes separately and considers information related to one’s own action outcomes to be more important.

Ergonomics ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1021-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
HARRIE G. M. BOHNEN ◽  
ANTHONY W. K. GAILLARD

2006 ◽  
Vol 399 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 39-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuji Tsukamoto ◽  
Yasunori Kotani ◽  
Yoshimi Ohgami ◽  
Kazufumi Omura ◽  
Yusuke Inoue ◽  
...  

1980 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 655-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Mc Cauley ◽  
Robert S. Kennedy ◽  
Alvah C. Bittner

A time-estimation task was considered for inclusion in the Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (PETER) battery. As part of this consideration, the effects of repeated testing on the reliability of time judgments were studied. The method of production was used to estimate eight time intervals. Five trials per day at each interval were administered individually to each of 19 subjects for 15 consecutive workdays. Two scores, constant error and variable error, were reported. The effect of days was not significant for constant error and was moderate for variable error ( p < .04). The standard deviations were relatively stable across trials. A pronounced decline in reliability over repeated days of testing was found for both errors. It was concluded that this time-estimation test would be a poor candidate for inclusion in PETER, but further research is warranted because of the potential unique contribution of a time-estimation task in a performance test battery.


2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 962-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob B. Hirsh ◽  
Michael Inzlicht

Individuals differ in the extent to which they respond negatively to uncertainty. Although some individuals feel little discomfort when facing the unknown, those high in neuroticism find it aversive. We examined neurophysiological responses to uncertainty using an event-related potential framework. Participants completed a time-estimation task while their neural activity was recorded via electroencephalography. The feedbackrelated negativity (FRN), an evoked potential that peaks approximately 250 ms after the receipt of feedback information, was examined under conditions of positive, negative, and uncertain feedback. The magnitude of these responses was then analyzed in relation to individual differences in neuroticism. As expected, a larger FRN was observed after negative feedback than after positive feedback for all participants. For individuals who scored highly on trait neuroticism, however, uncertain feedback produced a larger neural response than did negative feedback. These results are discussed in terms of affective responses to uncertainty among neurotic individuals.


2008 ◽  
Vol 187 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Conson ◽  
Fausta Cinque ◽  
Anna Maria Barbarulo ◽  
Luigi Trojano

1979 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 513-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. McCauley ◽  
Robert S. Kennedy ◽  
Alvah C. Bittner

A time estimation task was considered for inclusion in the Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (PETER) battery. As part of this consideration the effects of repeated testing on the reliability of time judgments, using the method of production, was studied. Forty trials per day were administered individually to each of 19 subjects for 15 consecutive weekdays. Descriptive statistics are reported and the need for knowledge about the reliability coefficient over repeated test administrations in the context of performance testing in exotic environments is discussed.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. W. Mies ◽  
F. M. Van der Veen ◽  
J. H. M. Tulen ◽  
M. W. Hengeveld ◽  
M. W. Van der Molen

This study investigated the cardiac and electrophysiological responses to feedback in a time-estimation task in which feedback-validity was manipulated. Participants across a wide age range had to produce 1 s intervals followed by positive and negative feedback that was valid or invalid (i.e., related or unrelated to the preceding time estimate). Performance results showed that they processed the information provided by the feedback. Negative feedback was associated with a transient cardiac slowing only when feedback was valid. Correct adjustments after valid negative feedback were associated with a more pronounced cardiac slowing. Validity did not affect the feedback-related negativity (FRN), except when remedial action was taken into account. The FRN and cardiac response to feedback decreased with advancing age, but performance did not. The current pattern of findings was interpreted to suggest that the FRN and cardiac response signal “alert” and that the cardiac response, but not the FRN, is implicated in the mechanisms invoked in remedial action.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document