↓ Skip to main content

Slow and Fast Responses: Two Mechanisms of Trial Outcome Processing Revealed by EEG Oscillations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Slow and Fast Responses: Two Mechanisms of Trial Outcome Processing Revealed by EEG Oscillations
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00218
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikita A. Novikov, Yulia M. Nurislamova, Natalia A. Zhozhikashvili, Evgenii E. Kalenkovich, Anna A. Lapina, Boris V. Chernyshev

Abstract

Cognitive control includes maintenance of task-specific processes related to attention, and non-specific regulation of motor threshold. Depending upon the nature of the behavioral tasks, these mechanisms may predispose to different kinds of errors, with either increased or decreased response time (RT) of erroneous responses relative to correct responses. Specifically, slow responses are related to attentional lapses and decision uncertainty, these conditions tending to delay RTs of both erroneous and correct responses. Here we studied if RT may be a valid approximation distinguishing trials with high and low levels of sustained attention and decision uncertainty. We analyzed response-related and feedback-related modulations in theta, alpha and beta band activity in the auditory version of the two-choice condensation task, which is highly demanding for sustained attention while involves no inhibition of prepotent responses. Depending upon response speed and accuracy, trials were divided into slow correct, slow erroneous, fast correct and fast erroneous. We found that error-related frontal midline theta (FMT) was present only on fast erroneous trials. The feedback-related FMT was equally strong on slow erroneous and fast erroneous trials. Late post-response posterior alpha suppression was stronger on erroneous slow trials. Feedback-related frontal beta was present only on slow correct trials. The data obtained cumulatively suggests that RT allows distinguishing the two types of trials, with fast trials related to higher levels of attention and low uncertainty, and slow trials related to lower levels of attention and higher uncertainty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 23%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 30%
Neuroscience 9 16%
Engineering 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,886,132
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,724
of 7,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,854
of 310,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#172
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.