ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Error cancellation.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Has stopping stopped making sense? Disentangling the processes elicited by complex action cancellation paradigms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Feature binding and error commission.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Error Cancellation During Early Task Performance.Experimental psychology · 2025Article
- Error-Related Brain Activity Indicates Immediate Auto-Cancellation of Action Slips.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Disentangling decision errors from action execution in mouse-tracking studies: The case of effect-based action control.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Post-loss speeding or post-win slowing? An empirical note on the interpretation of decision-making time as a function of previous outcome.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Guess what? Only correct choices forge immediate stimulus-response bindings in guessing scenarios.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Slip or fallacy? Effects of error severity on own and observed pitch error processing in pianists.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Error cancellation.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Binding Error-Induced Control States.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- Binding and Retrieval of Response Durations: Subtle Evidence for Episodic Processing of Continuous Movement Features.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human cognitive system houses efficient mechanisms to monitor ongoing actions. Upon detecting an erroneous course of action, these mechanisms are commonly assumed to adjust cognitive processing to mitigate the error's consequences and to prevent future action slips. Here, we demonstrate that error detection has far earlier consequences by feeding back directly onto ongoing motor activity, thus cancelling erroneous movements immediately. We tested this prediction of immediate auto-correction by analysing how the force of correct and erroneous keypress actions evolves over time while controlling for cognitive and biomechanical constraints relating to response time and the peak force of a movement. We conclude that the force profiles are indicative of active cancellation by showing indications of shorter response durations for errors already within the first 100 ms, i.e. between the onset and the peak of the response, a timescale that has previously been related solely to error detection. This effect increased in a late phase of responding, i.e. after response force peaked until its offset, further corroborating that it indeed reflects cancellation efforts instead of consequences of planning or initiating the error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.