Literature DB >> 22250911

Individual differences in working memory capacity predict action monitoring and the error-related negativity.

A Eve Miller1, Jason M Watson1, David L Strayer1.   

Abstract

Neuroscience suggests that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is responsible for conflict monitoring and the detection of errors in cognitive tasks, thereby contributing to the implementation of attentional control. Though individual differences in frontally mediated goal maintenance have clearly been shown to influence outward behavior in interference-rich contexts, it is unclear whether corresponding differences exist in neural responses that arise out of the ACC. To investigate this possibility, we conducted an electrophysiological study using a variant of the Simon Task, recording event-related potentials (ERPs) in healthy normal individuals with varying working memory capacity (high vs. low spans; a behavioral proxy for variability in goal maintenance). Primary analyses focused on the magnitude of the error-related negativity (ERN), a response-locked ERP component associated with the commission of errors thought to arise because of action monitoring in the ACC. Our results revealed that frontally mediated working memory capacity may alter error monitoring by the ACC, with high spans showing a greater ERN than low spans. These individual differences were also observed in the posterror positivity, a response-locked ERP component associated with updating cognitive strategies, suggesting greater awareness of errors with increased working memory capacity. These results are interpreted within 2-process models of attentional control, suggesting individuals with greater working memory capacity may better maintain task goals by more strongly biasing neural activity in frontal-executive networks. (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22250911     DOI: 10.1037/a0026595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  16 in total

1.  Cortical potentials in an auditory oddball task reflect individual differences in working memory capacity.

Authors:  Kate A Yurgil; Edward J Golob
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 2.  A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Matthew K Robison
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

3.  Mood induction effects on motor sequence learning and stop signal reaction time.

Authors:  Brian Greeley; Rachael D Seidler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors.

Authors:  Audrey V B Hood; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Carving executive control at its joints: Working memory capacity predicts stimulus-stimulus, but not stimulus-response, conflict.

Authors:  Matt E Meier; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Action errors impair active working memory maintenance.

Authors:  Jan R Wessel; Jiefeng Jiang; Jeff J Stolley
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2022-02-10

7.  The influence of working memory capacity and lapses of attention for variation in error monitoring.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Ashley L Miller; Matthew K Robison
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 3.526

8.  The effects of acute abstinence from smoking and performance-based rewards on performance monitoring.

Authors:  Nicolas J Schlienz; Larry W Hawk; Keri S Rosch
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  The error-related negativity as a neuromarker of risk or resilience in young children.

Authors:  Jamie M Lawler; Jessica Hruschak; Kristin Aho; Yanni Liu; Ka I Ip; Renee Lajiness-O'Neill; Katherine L Rosenblum; Maria Muzik; Kate D Fitzgerald
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 2.708

10.  Knowing right from wrong in mental arithmetic judgments: calibration of confidence predicts the development of accuracy.

Authors:  Luke F Rinne; Michèle M M Mazzocco
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.