Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:43:38.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliable and efficient recording of the error-related negativity with a speeded Eriksen Flanker Task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

Franziska Suchan ,
Juliane Kopf ,
Heike Althen ,
Andreas Reif  and
Michael M. Plichta
Franziska Suchan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Straße 10, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany
Juliane Kopf
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Straße 10, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany
Heike Althen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Straße 10, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany
Andreas Reif
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Straße 10, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany
Michael M. Plichta*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Straße 10, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Michael M. Plichta, Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Straße 10, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany. Tel: +49 (0)69 6301 5897; Fax: +49 (0)69 6301 81671; E-mail: michael.plichta@kgu.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

There is accumulating evidence that the error-related negativity (ERN), an event-related potential elicited after erroneous actions, is altered in different psychiatric disorders and may help to guide treatment options. Thus, the ERN is a promising candidate as a psychiatric biomarker. Basic methodological requirements for a biomarker are that their measurements are standardised and reliable. The aim of the present study was to establish ERN acquisition in a reliable, time-efficient and patient-friendly way for use in clinical practice.

Methods

Healthy subjects performed a speeded Eriksen Flanker Task that increases the number of errors. In a test–retest design (N = 14) with two sessions separated by 28 days we assessed the reliability of the ERN. To ensure external validity, we aimed to replicate previously reported correlation patterns of ERN amplitude with (A) number of errors and (B) negative affect. In order to optimise the clinical use of the task, we determined to which extent the task can be shortened while keeping reliability >0.80.

Results

We found excellent reliability of the ERN (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.806–0.947) and replicated ERN correlation patterns. The task can be halved to a patient-friendly length of 200 trials (recorded in 8 min) keeping reliability >0.80.

Conclusions

The modified task provides reliable and efficient recording of the ERN, facilitating its use as a psychiatric biomarker.

Keywords

electroencephalographyevoked potentialsreproducibility of results
Type
Original Article
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 135 - 142
Copyright
© Scandinavian College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Holroyd, CB and Coles, MGH (2002) The neural basis of human error processing: reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev 109, 679–709.Google Scholar
2. Gehring, G and Coles, M (1993) Donchin. A neural system for error detection and conpensation. Psychol Sci 4, 385–390.Google Scholar
3. Falkenstein, H and Hoormann, B (1991) Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 78, 447–455.Google Scholar
4. Eriksen, CW and Eriksen, BA (1979) Target redondancy in visual search: do repetitions of target within the display impair processing? Percept Psychophys 26, 356–370.Google Scholar
5. Cassidy, SM, Robertson, IH and O’Connell, RG (2012) Retest reliability of event-related potentials: evidence from a variety of paradigms. Psychophysiology 49, 659–664.Google Scholar
6. Ehlis, AC, Herrmann, MJ, Bernhard, A and Fallgatter, AJ (2005) Monitoring of internal and external error signals. J Psychophysiol 19, 263–269.Google Scholar
7. Olvet, DM and Hajcak, G (2009) Reliability of error-related brain activity. Brain Res 1284, 89–99.Google Scholar
8. Falkenstein, H and Christ, H (2000) ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: a tutorial. Biol Psychol 51, 87–107.Google Scholar
9. Brázdil, M, Roman, R, Daniel, P and Rektor, I (2005) Intracerebral error-related negativity in a simple Go/NoGo task. J Psychophysiol 19, 244–255.Google Scholar
10. Holroyd, CB, Dien, J and Coles, MGH (1998) Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements: evidence for an output-independent error-processing system in humans. Neurosci Lett 242, 65–68.Google Scholar
11. Luu, P, Tucker, DM and Makeig, S (2004) Frontal midline theta and the error-related negativity: neurophysiological mechanisms of action regulation. Clin Neurophysiol 115, 1821–1835.Google Scholar
12. Bush, G, Luu, P and Posner, MI (2000) Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 4, 215–222.Google Scholar
13. Gehring, WJ and Knight, RT (2000) Prefrontal-cingulate interactions in action monitoring. Nat Neurosci 3, 516–520.Google Scholar
14. Scheffers, MK and Coles, MGH (2000) Performance monitoring in a confusing world: error-related brain activity, judgments of response accuracy, and types of errors. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26, 141–151.Google Scholar
15. Vidal, F, Hasbroucq, T, Grapperon, J and Bonnet, M (2000) Is the ‘error negativity’ specific to errors? Biol Psychol 51, 109–128.Google Scholar
16. Coles, MGH, Scheffers, MK and Holroyd, CB (2001) Why is there an ERN/Ne on correct trials? Response representations, stimulus-related components, and the theory of error-processing. Biol Psychol 56, 173–189.Google Scholar
17. Yordanova, J, Falkenstein, M, Hohnsbein, J and Kolev, V (2004) Parallel systems of error processing in the brain. Neuroimage. 22, 590–602.Google Scholar
18. Yeung, N, Botvinick, MM and Cohen, JD (2004) The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev 111, 931–959.Google Scholar
19. Joch, M, Hegele, M, Maurer, H, Müller, H and Maurer, LK (2017) Brain negativity as an indicator of predictive error processing: the contribution of visual action effect monitoring. J Neurophysiol 118, 486–495.Google Scholar
20. Alexander, WH and Brown, JW (2011) NIH public access. Brain. 14, 1338–1344.Google Scholar
21. Fischer, AG, Klein, TA and Ullsperger, M (2017) Comparing the error-related negativity across groups: the impact of error- and trial-number differences. Psychophysiology 54, 998–1009.Google Scholar
22. Hajcak, G, McDonald, N and Simons, RF (2003) To err is autonomic: error-related brain potentials, ANS activity, and post-error compensatory behavior. Psychophysiology 40, 895–903.Google Scholar
23. Brown, JW and Braver, TS (2005) Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex. Science 307, 1118–1121.Google Scholar
24. Hajcak, G, McDonald, N and Simons, RF (2004) Error-related psychophysiology and negative affect. Brain Cogn 56, 189–197.Google Scholar
25. Luu, P, Collins, P and Tucker, DM (2000) Mood, personality, and self-monitoring: negative affect and emotionality in relation to frontal lobe mechanisms of error monitoring. J Exp Psychol Gen 129, 43–60.Google Scholar
26. Fissler, M, Winnebeck, E, Schroeter, TA, Gummbersbach, M, Huntenburg, JM, Gärtner, M and Barnhofer, T (2017) Brief training in mindfulness may normalize a blunted error-related negativity in chronically depressed patients. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 17, 1164–1175.Google Scholar
27. Rabella, M, Grasa, E, Corripio, I, Romero, S, Mañanas, MÀ, Antonijoan, RM, Münte, TF, Pérez, V and Riba, J (2016) Neurophysiological evidence of impaired self-monitoring in schizotypal personality disorder and its reversal by dopaminergic antagonism. NeuroImage Clin 11, 770–779.Google Scholar
28. Gehring, WJ, Himle, J and Nisenson, LG (2016) Action-monitoring dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder. In: William JG, Joseph H and Laura GN. Sage Publications Inc. on behalf of the Association for Psychological Science Stable. Available at http://www11:p. 1–6.Google Scholar
29. Meyer, A, Hajcak, G, Glenn, CR, Kujawa, AJ and Klein, DN (2017) Error-related brain activity is related to aversive potentiation of the startle response in children, but only the ern is associated with anxiety disorders. Emotion 17, 487–496.Google Scholar
30. Meyer, A, Danielson, CK, Danzig, AP, Bhatia, V, Black, SR, Bromet, E, Carlson, G, Hajcak, G, Kotov, R and Klein, DN (2017) Neural biomarker and early temperament predict increased internalizing symptoms after a natural disaster. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 56, 410–416.Google Scholar
31. Meyer, A (2017) A biomarker of anxiety in children and adolescents: a review focusing on the error-related negativity (ERN) and anxiety across development. Dev Cogn Neurosci 27, 58–68.Google Scholar
32. Meyer, A, Nelson, B, Perlman, G, Klein, DN and Kotov, R (2018) A neural biomarker, the error-related negativity, predicts the first onset of generalized anxiety disorder in a large sample of adolescent females. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 59, 1162–1170.Google Scholar
33. Schroder, HS, Moran, TP and Moser, JS (2018) The effect of expressive writing on the error-related negativity among individuals with chronic worry. Psychophysiology 55, e12990.Google Scholar
34. Forster, SE, Zirnheld, P, Shekhar, A, Steinhauer, SR, O’Donnell, BF and Hetrick, WP (2017) Event-related potentials reflect impaired temporal interval learning following haloperidol administration. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 234, 2545–2562.Google Scholar
35. Hobson, NM, Bonk, D and Inzlicht, M (2017) Rituals decrease the neural response to performance failure. Peer J 5, e3363.Google Scholar
36. Gorka, SM, Burkhouse, KL, Klumpp, H, Kennedy, AE, Afshar, K, Francis, J, Ajilore, O, Mariouw, S, Craske, M, Langenecker, S, Shankman, SA and Luan Phan, K (2017) Error-related brain activity as a treatment moderator and index of symptom change during cognitive-behavioral therapy or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Neuropsychopharmacology 43, 1355–1363.Google Scholar
37. Segalowitz, SJ, Santesso, DL, Murphy, TI, Homan, D, Chantziantoniou, DK and Khan, S (2010) Retest reliability of medial frontal negativities during performance monitoring. Psychophysiology 47, 260–270.Google Scholar
38. Weinberg, A and Hajcak, G (2011) Longer term test-retest reliability of error-related brain activity. Psychophysiology. 48, 1420–1425.Google Scholar
39. Larson, MJ, Baldwin, SA, Good, DA and Fair, JE (2010) Temporal stability of the error-related negativity (ERN) and post-error positivity (Pe): the role of number of trials. Psychophysiology 47, 1167–1171.Google Scholar
40. Debener, S (2005) Trial-by-trial coupling of concurrent electroencephalogram and functional magnetic resonance imaging identifies the dynamics of performance monitoring. J Neurosci 25, 11730–11737.Google Scholar
41. Unger, K, Heintz, S and Kray, J (2012) Punishment sensitivity modulates the processing of negative feedback but not error-induced learning. Front Hum Neurosci 6, 1–16.Google Scholar
42. Sheehan, DV, Lecrubier, Y, Sheehan, KH, Amorim, P, Janavs, J, Weiller, E, Hergueta, T, Baker, R and Dunbar, GC (1998) The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 59(Suppl. 20):22–33.Google Scholar
43. Krohne, H, Egloff, B, Kohlmann, C-W and Tausch, A (1996) Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der ‘Positive and Negative Affect Schedule’ (PANAS). Diagnostica 42, 139–156.Google Scholar
44. Watson, D, Clark, LA and Tellegen, A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Personal Soc Psychol 54, 1063–1070.Google Scholar
45. Gratton, G, Coles, MGH and Donchin, E (1983) A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 55, 468–484.Google Scholar
46. Shrout, PE and Fleiss, JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86, 420–428.Google Scholar
47. Bartko, JJ (1976) On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychol Bull 83, 762–765.Google Scholar
48. Kopp, B, Rist, F and Mattler, U (1996) N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control. Psychophysiology 33, 282–294.Google Scholar
49. Boudewyn, MA, Luck, SJ, Farrens, JL and Kappenman, ES (2017) How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? It depends. Psychophysiology 55, e13049.Google Scholar
50. Joch, M, Hegele, M, Maurer, H, Müller, H and Maurer, LK (2018) Accuracy of motor error predictions for different sensory signals. Front Psychol 9, 1–13.Google Scholar
51. Rosaroso, RC (2015) Using reliability measures in test validation. Eur Sci J 11, 1857–7881.Google Scholar
52. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Arlington: APA, 991 pp.Google Scholar
53. Quik, EH (2012) The somatotropic axis: effects on brain and cognitive functions. Netherlands: Uitgeverij BOXPress.Google Scholar
54. Bismark, AW, Hajcak, G, Whitworth, NM and Allen, JJB (2013) The role of outcome expectations in the generation of the feedback-related negativity. Psychophysiology 50, 125–133.Google Scholar
55. Micheel, CM and Ball, JR (2010) Evaluation of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in chronic disease.Google Scholar
56. Carcone, D and Ruocco, AC (2017) Six years of research on the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative: a systematic review. Front Cell Neurosci 11, 1–8.Google Scholar
57. Ladouceur, CD (2016) The error-related negativity: a transdiagnostic marker of sustained threat? Psychophysiology 53, 389–392.Google Scholar
58. Weinberg, A, Meyer, A, Hale-Rude, E, Perlman, G, Kotov, R, Klein, DN and Hajcak, G (2016) Error-related negativity (ERN) and sustained threat: conceptual framework and empirical evaluation in an adolescent sample. Psychophysiology 53, 372–385.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Suchan et al. supplementary material

Suchan et al. supplementary material 1

Download Suchan et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4.3 MB