Error and post-error processing in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An electrical neuroimaging study

Prefrontal-cerebellar dynamics during post-success and post-error cognitive controls in major psychiatric disorders

BACKGROUND

Difficulty in cognitive adjustment after a conflict or error is a hallmark for many psychiatric disorders, yet the underlying neural correlates are not fully understood. We have previously shown that post-success and post-error cognitive controls are associated with distinct mechanisms particularly related to the prefrontal-cerebellar circuit, raising the possibility that altered dynamic interactions in this circuit may underlie mental illness.

METHODS

This study included 136 patients with three diagnosed disorders [48 schizophrenia (SZ), 49 bipolar disorder (BD), 39 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)] and 89 healthy controls who completed a stop-signal task during fMRI scans. Brain activations for concurrent, post-success, and post-error cognitive controls were analyzed and compared between groups. Dynamic causal modeling was applied to investigate prefrontal-cerebellar effective connectivity patterns during post-success and post-error processing.

RESULTS

No significant group differences were observed for brain activations and overall effective connectivity structures during post-success and post-error conditions. However, significant group differences were shown for the modulational effect on top-down connectivity from the prefrontal cortex to the cerebellum during post-error trials (pFWE = 0.02), which was driven by reduced modulations in both SZ and ADHD. During post-success trials, there were significantly decreased modulational effect on bottom-up connectivity from the cerebellum to the prefrontal cortex in ADHD (pFWE = 0.04) and decreased driving input to the cerebellum in SZ (pFWE = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that patients with SZ and ADHD are associated with insufficient neural modulation on the prefrontal-cerebellar circuit during post-success and post-error cognitive processing, a phenomenon that may underlie cognitive deficits in these disorders.

Post-error adjustments depend causally on executive attention: Evidence from an intervention study

Detecting and correcting execution errors is crucial for safe and efficient goal-directed behavior. Despite intensive investigations on error processing, the cognitive foundations of this process remain unclear. Based on the presumed relation between executive attention (EA) and error processing, we implemented a seven-day EA intervention by adopting the Posner cueing paradigm to test the potential causal link from EA to error processing in healthy adults. The experimental group (high EA, HEA) was trained on the Posner cueing paradigm, with a ratio of invalid cue (IC) trials to valid cue (VC) trials of 5:1 and a corresponding ratio of 1:1 in the active control group (low EA, LEA). We found that the EA intervention improved EA across intervention sessions. Critically, after the EA intervention, the HEA group showed that post-error accuracy (PEA) was restored to the same level as the post-correct accuracy (in comparison with the LEA group). However, post-error slowing and the flanker effect were not modulated by the EA intervention. Furthermore, we observed that the changes in the accuracy of VC trials positively predicted the changes in PEA and that the two groups were classified according to the changes in PEA with a 61.3% accuracy. Based on these results, we propose that EA causally drives error processing. And the capabilities of the “actively catch” more attention resources and the automatic mismatch processing developed after EA intervention is transferable to error processing, thereby directly resulting in the gains in post-error adjustments. Our work informs the potential cognitive mechanisms underlying this causal link.

Neural correlates of error-monitoring and mindset: Back to the drawing board?

The different ways students deal with mistakes is an integral part of mindset theory. While previous error-monitoring studies found supporting neural evidence for mindset-related differences, they may have been confounded by overlapping stimulus processing. We therefore investigated the relationship between mindset and event-related potentials (ERPs) of error-monitoring (response-locked Ne, Pe), with and without overlap correction. In addition, besides behavioral measures of remedial action after errors (post-error slowing and accuracy), we investigated their neural correlates (stimulus-locked N2). Results indicated comparable Ne, but larger Pe amplitudes in fixed-minded students; however, after overlap correction, the Pe results were rendered non-significant. A likely explanation for this overlap was a near-significant effect of mindset on the preceding stimulus P3. Finally, although N2 was larger for trials following errors, mindset was unrelated. The current study shows that the relationship between error-monitoring and mindset is more complex and should be reconsidered. Future studies are advised to explore stimulus processing as well, and if needed, to correct for stimulus overlap. In addition, contextual influences on and individual variation in error-monitoring need more scrutiny, which may contribute to refining mindset theory.