Research reportError processing and impulsiveness in normals: evidence from event-related potentials
Introduction
The concept of impulsiveness has a long tradition in psychiatry [3]. Impulsiveness is a core feature of a variety of psychiatric diseases like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, drug intoxication, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder [24], [31]. Pharmacological studies found close connections between impulsive personality traits and a dysfunction of the serotonergic and noradrenergic system [26]. This finding was confirmed by several positron emission tomography (PET) studies which showed hypometabolism in prefrontal cortical areas [8], [27] reflecting a diminished serotonergic turnover and consecutively an impaired regulation of impulsive behavior [17].
Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) are a useful tool to investigate impulsiveness because they permit tracking the time course of fast cognitive processing on-line with a time resolution in the range of milliseconds. During the last years, special attention was paid to the error negativity (Ne; [10]) or error-related negativity (ERN; [13]), an ERP component which mirrors erroneous responding in forced choice reaction time paradigms like the Eriksen flanker task [9], [19], [23]. The ERN/Ne is a negative ERP deflection peaking between 100 and 150 ms after the onset of an erroneous response [25]. Larger amplitudes of the ERN/Ne were found when task instructions emphasize accuracy over speed (speed accuracy trade-off; [14]). Experimental evidence from dipole solutions of the ERN/Ne with brain electric source analysis (BESA) and from several fMRI studies (e. g. [5]) pointed to neural generators in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
Originally, the ERN/Ne was considered in the context of error detection resulting from a mismatch between the representation of the correct response and the representation of the actual (false) response [10], [14]. Alternative accounts view the ERN/Ne as a brain potential reflecting the response evaluation process itself rather than the outcome of this process [29]. Rather contrary to these interpretations, Cohen and coworkers interpret the ERN/Ne to be associated with the detection of response conflict [4], [5].
Several studies showed that variability in the amplitude of the ERN/Ne depends on mood and personality variables. Luu, Collins, and Tucker [19] found large ERN/Ne amplitudes in college students who were high on negative affect (NA) and negative emotionality (NEM) in the beginning of an Eriksen flanker task. Moreover, a shift on response patterns was found during the experiment. By means of a post-task questionnaire parts of the subjects were reported to have been bored and dissatisfied with their performance resulting in motivational problems and disengagement from the task. When EEG data were re-analyzed for members of the high-NA and high-NEM groups with motivational problems, the amplitude of the ERN/Ne decreased. This pattern of results was strikingly different from results of participants who were low on NA and NEM. Similarly, Dikman and Allen [9] demonstrated that individuals low on socialization exhibit smaller ERN/Ne amplitudes during tasks which penalize error responses. In the same vein, Pailing and coworkers [23] found smaller ERN/Ne peak amplitudes in subjects with a tendency towards impulsive responding. Impulsivity was rated based on linear regression from correct individual reaction times on reaction times from erroneous responses. Mean RT residual scores were defined as mean difference of observed RTs (Ŷ) minus predicted RTs (Ŷ) for error trials (Σ(Y − Ŷ)/n). Less negative mean residual RTs were regarded as indicating a more cautious (controlled) response strategy whereas more negative residuals were interpreted to indicate a less controlled (i.e., more impulsive) response style. Furthermore, in their study, ERN/Ne latencies were positively related with percentage of errors, suggesting that individuals with shorter ERN/Ne latencies should have more opportunity to control for erroneous response tendencies [23].
Another ERP component discussed in the context of error processing is the error positivity (Pe), first described by Falkenstein and coworkers [10], [11]. The Pe is a slow positive wave with centroparietal distribution which usually follows the ERN/Ne in a time window between 300 ms and 500 ms after erroneous responses. The Pe has been differentiated from the P300 by some authors [12], whereas others interpret the Pe as a P300 on the erroneous response [7]. A source localization analysis using BESA revealed that the Pe consists of two components: an “early” Pe component with probable generators in an area around the caudal ACC and a “late” Pe component with probable generators in an area around the rostral ACC. The “early” Pe has been regarded as functionally belonging to the ERN/Ne [28], whereas the “late” Pe component was associated with awareness of erroneous responses and was more pronounced for perceived than for unperceived errors [20].
In the present study, we investigated ERPs related to errors of commission (i.e., pressing a button when one is not supposed to do in a Go/Nogo task) and correct responses (i.e., pressing a button when one is supposed to do so). Errors due to delayed response (“faster” as feedback) were excluded from ERP analysis. We analyzed the relationship between amplitudes and latencies of the three error-related ERP components (ERN/Ne, “early” Pe, and “late” Pe) and two behavioral indices of response control (RT residual values and error rates). Similar to the method originally introduced by Pailing et al. [23], subjects were split into a high (henceforth: HI) and low (henceforth: LI) impulsiveness group based on individual mean RT residuals. We reasoned that individuals with high impulsiveness (more negative RT residual values) should demonstrate smaller ERN/Ne amplitudes (less negative) and smaller “early” Pe amplitudes (less positive) than individuals with a more controlled response strategy (less negative RT residual values). Besides that, we expected longer ERN/Ne latencies and “early” Pe latencies in less controlled subjects. From their finding of a positive correlation between error rates and ERN/Ne latencies, Pailing et al. [23] reasoned that subjects with faster ERN/Ne's have a more controlled response strategy as they have more opportunity to catch erroneous intentions (see also [32]). With regard to the “late” Pe component, group differences on this component should indicate differences in the awareness of errors between HI and LI subjects as has been suggested by Nieuwenhuis and coworkers [20].
Section snippets
Participants
Thirty-two right-handed [21] healthy subjects (eleven males) with no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders took part in the study. After complete description of the study to the subjects, written informed consent was obtained. The study was approved by the local ethical committee and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The entire group had a mean (SD) of 29.4 (10.9) years of age (range, 20–65) and a mean of 12.2 (1.7) years of education (range, 8–13). We calculated
Behavioral data
Given the task, only false positive responses on Nogo trials were of interest (commission errors). Consequently, error rates were individually calculated as number of false positive reactions during Nogo trials. For HI subjects, mean number of errors was 54.9 (SD: 24.4), corresponding to an error rate of 18.3%. LI subjects demonstrated a mean number of 40.8 errors (SD: 24.4), corresponding to an error rate of 13.6%. An ANOVA on the mean number of correct and incorrect trials including the
Discussion
In the present study, we used a Go/Nogo paradigm to investigate neurophysiological correlates of impulsiveness in healthy controls. Following a proposal by Pailing and coworkers [23], we calculated individual mean reaction time residuals as kind of scores in order to determine response control in participants. Using these RT residuals, the entire group (n = 32) was split into two subgroups with high (n = 16) and low impulsiveness (n = 16), respectively. Comparing performance data of HI and LI
References (32)
- et al.
Error-related negativity and correct response negativity in schizophrenia
Clin. Neurophysiol.
(2002) - et al.
State dependent changes in error monitoring in schizophrenia
J. Psychiatr. Res.
(2004) - et al.
Error-negativity and positivity as they relate to other ERP indices of attentional control and stimulus processing
Biol. Psychol.
(2001) - et al.
Brain glucose metabolism in borderline personality disorder
J. Psychiatr. Res.
(1997) - et al.
Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components: II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks.
Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.
(1991) - et al.
ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: a tutorial
Biol. Psychol.
(2000) - et al.
A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact
Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.
(1983) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory
Neuropsychologia
(1971)- et al.
Impulsivity and prefrontal hypometabolism in borderline personality disorder
Psychiatry Res.
(2003) - et al.
Is the ‘error negativity’ specific to errors?
Biol. Psychol.
(2000)
A neuropsychiatric approach to impulse disorders
Psychiatr. Clin. North Am.
Abulia and impulsiveness revisited: a conceptual history
Acta Psychiatr. Scand.
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Psychol. Rev.
Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance
Science
Personality disorders and the five-factor model
J. Pers. Disord.
Error monitoring during reward and avoidance learning in high- and low-socialized individuals
Psychophysiology
Cited by (96)
Unsupportive romantic partner behaviors increase neural reactivity to mistakes
2021, International Journal of PsychophysiologyModulation of control: Can HD-tDCS targeting the dACC reduce impulsivity?
2021, Brain ResearchA person-centered examination of emotion dysregulation, sensitivity to threat, and impulsivity among children and adolescents: An ERP study
2021, Developmental Cognitive NeuroscienceIs there electrophysiological evidence for a bilingual advantage in neural processes related to executive functions?
2020, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsElectrophysiology of goal-directed versus habitual control during outcome devaluation
2019, CortexCitation Excerpt :However, the ERPs elicited during learning could not predict the dN2 from the slips-of-action test, once again underscoring how N2 and ERN probably reflect different aspects of performance monitoring (Falkenstein et al., 1999; Larson, Clayson, & Clawson, 2014; Yeung & Cohen, 2006). Psychopathology and personality research suggests that variations in ERN amplitude are state-independent and rather related to trait differences (Boksem, Tops, Kostermans, & De Cremer, 2008; Boksem, Tops, Wester, Meijman, & Lorist, 2006; Hajcak et al., 2004; Hajcak, Franklin, Foa, & Simons, 2008; Hajcak, McDonald, & Simons, 2003; Hall, Bernat, & Patrick, 2007; Luu, Collins, & Tucker, 2000; Moser, Hajcak, & Simons, 2005; Potts, George, Martin, & Barratt, 2006; Ruchsow, Spitzer, Grön, Grothe, & Kiefer, 2005). This is in line with our ERN findings, which show that dERN amplitudes remain stable across tasks in the fabulous fruit game (see also Riesel, Weinberg, Endrass, Meyer, & Hajcak, 2013), and are suggestive of an overarching cognitive control trait.