The present study explored the relevance of internal signals for the dynamics of personal and nonpersonal feedback processing. To this end, pairs of participants performed concurrently a choice-response task and received external signals in four feedback contexts. In two contexts, feedback was informative about the personal performance (personal/private and personal/public); in the other two contexts, instructions suggested that feedback was informative about the other participant's performance (nonpersonal/other) or that it was random (nonpersonal/random). Since personal feedback was contingent on performance, the two contexts with personal feedback allowed a reference between internal and external signals. This reference significantly affected personal feedback processing. On the one hand, in the processing of personal feedback, the feedback-related negativities (FRNs) evoked by feedback associated with distinctively fast or slow responses were less negative than the FRN elicited by feedback related to responses made with average speed. On the other hand, feedback signals evoked FRNs with similar amplitudes in the two contexts with nonpersonal feedback. Furthermore, personal and nonpersonal feedback elicited ERPs with different strength. Starting with the P2 potential. personal feedback evoked a more positive electrophysiological response than nonpersonal feedback. Based on these results, we conclude that a link between internal and external signals, as for personal feedback, is a key factor influencing the dynamics of feedback processing.
Linking internal and external signals for performance monitoring: An event‐related potential study
Valt, ChristianFormal Analysis
;
2018-01-01
Abstract
The present study explored the relevance of internal signals for the dynamics of personal and nonpersonal feedback processing. To this end, pairs of participants performed concurrently a choice-response task and received external signals in four feedback contexts. In two contexts, feedback was informative about the personal performance (personal/private and personal/public); in the other two contexts, instructions suggested that feedback was informative about the other participant's performance (nonpersonal/other) or that it was random (nonpersonal/random). Since personal feedback was contingent on performance, the two contexts with personal feedback allowed a reference between internal and external signals. This reference significantly affected personal feedback processing. On the one hand, in the processing of personal feedback, the feedback-related negativities (FRNs) evoked by feedback associated with distinctively fast or slow responses were less negative than the FRN elicited by feedback related to responses made with average speed. On the other hand, feedback signals evoked FRNs with similar amplitudes in the two contexts with nonpersonal feedback. Furthermore, personal and nonpersonal feedback elicited ERPs with different strength. Starting with the P2 potential. personal feedback evoked a more positive electrophysiological response than nonpersonal feedback. Based on these results, we conclude that a link between internal and external signals, as for personal feedback, is a key factor influencing the dynamics of feedback processing.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.