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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2021-07, Vol.16 (7), p.e0254322-e0254322
Main Authors: Janssen, Tieme W. P, Nieuwenhuis, Smiddy, Hoefakker, Jamie, Dreier Gligoor, Patricia D, Bonte, Milene, van Atteveldt, Nienke
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Biology and Life Sciences
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive ability
Developmental psychology
Earth Sciences
Error analysis
Error correction
Errors
Event-related potentials
Evoked potentials (Electrophysiology)
Feedback
Information processing
Medicine and Health Sciences
Monitoring
Neurosciences
Physiological aspects
Psychological aspects
Psychological research
Research and Analysis Methods
Self-perception
Social Sciences
Students
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0254322