ArticleFrontiers in cognition2026
Conflict and control in error monitoring during sustained visual discrimination.
Article in Frontiers in cognition, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increases in response errors across time-on-task are ubiquitous in vigilance research, particularly for tasks that require visual operations. An important aspect of vigilance tasks is response monitoring, particularly when a prepotent response must be inhibited. Neural indices of performance monitoring, such as the error-related negativity (ERN), provide strong evidence for changes in response conflict across time during vigilance tasks; however, it is unclear whether the allocation of additional cognitive resources (i.e., working memory) during such tasks leads to differences in response errors and performance monitoring. To examine this relationship, we employed a visual discrimination task in which participants must compare pairs of lines either to each other (simultaneous discrimination) or to a template held in working memory (successive discrimination) and decide whether to withhold or provide a response across 4 blocks of trials. We predicted lower ERN amplitudes and greater false alarm rates during visual discrimination trials that employ working memory (successive discrimination) compared to those that do not (simultaneous discrimination). While ERN peak amplitude was significantly greater during simultaneous compared to successive discrimination for incorrect responses, participants showed significantly higher false alarm rates during simultaneous discrimination, contrary to our hypotheses. To further investigate these results, we developed and examined outputs from computational models of the two experimental tasks based on a parallel-distributed processing account of cognitive control in which working memory (during successive discrimination), response conflict, and effortful control modulate continuous task performance. Task simulations suggest that pre-stimulus processing of a working memory template during successive discrimination helps to lower false alarms and alleviate post-stimulus error monitoring. These results are interpreted in the context of resource allocation and compensatory control with respect to the vigilance decrement.
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.