ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2025
Sharing errors with human and non-human agents.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Interpersonal action monitoring, i.e., the ability to monitor other people's actions, is essential during face-to-face interactions. Previous evidence from two independent research lines suggests that both how we represent the interaction goal and the human/non-human nature of the co-actor may affect how we process (and react to) their mistakes. Here, we examined in a full-factorial design whether these two factors modulate how we monitor someone else's errors during minimally joint tasks. During functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), participants interacted with a human or the computer while sharing or not the goal of playing a melody together (shared vs. individual goal conditions). We used implied-motion pictures of a human hand to represent the human partner's responses, while a robotic piston represented the computer's ones. Despite the minimal nature of the interaction, multivariate pattern analysis revealed that it was possible to decode the human/non-human nature of the partner from post-error brain activation patterns but only in the shared goal condition. With both partners, post-error behavioral adaptations in this condition were associated with activation of the pre-supplementary motor area and right anterior insula, brain regions responsible for proactive action control. Goal sharing is thus a powerful factor in boosting interpersonal action monitoring with both human and non-human partners.
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.