Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

Trial-by-Trial Coupling of Concurrent Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies the Dynamics of Performance Monitoring

Stefan Debener, Markus Ullsperger, Markus Siegel, Katja Fiehler, D. Yves von Cramon and Andreas K. Engel
Journal of Neuroscience 14 December 2005, 25 (50) 11730-11737; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3286-05.2005
Stefan Debener
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Markus Ullsperger
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Markus Siegel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katja Fiehler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Yves von Cramon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas K. Engel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  •   Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Sequence of stimulus events in the speeded flanker task. Participants viewed four task-irrelevant flanker arrows, followed by a central arrow that indicated the response direction and pointed to the same or opposite direction as flanker arrows. Compatible (same direction) and incompatible (opposite direction) trials appeared in randomized order and with the same probability. For trials in which subjects responded slower than a dynamically adapting individual response deadline, a symbolic feedback occurred urging the subject to speed up in consecutive trials.

  •   Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    The selected ICs are equivalent to the scalp-recorded ERN. a, Identified components were characterized by a radial central topography. Depicted is the grand mean IC topography, after root-mean-square normalization (arbitrary units). b, Grand average (n = 13 subjects) IC activation ERPs for the vertex electrode (Cz), time-locked to response-onset times, revealed the ERN in the incompatible error condition. Negativity is plotted upwards. c, Informed dipole seeding of the grand mean IC topography shown in a, at Talairach coordinates (x, y, z) = 0, 20, 30. This location was derived from standard analysis of the concurrently recorded fMRI contrasting incompatible error and incompatible correct trials. The equivalent current dipole, which explained 90.2% of the variance, is plotted on a canonical magnetic resonance image template of the human head. RV, Residual variance. d, ERP-image plot of IC incompatible error trials at vertex electrode (Cz) aligned to stimulus onset (0). Sorting the trials by reaction time (sigmoid white line) and smoothing with a moving average across 30 trials visualizes the ERN–reaction time relationship. e, Time–frequency analysis of the total power difference (in decibels) between IC incompatible error and incompatible correct trials. Significantly more theta activity for the error condition is indicated by the black contour line. The white vertical lines denote the stimulus onset time (0 ms) and mean reaction time for erroneous responses, respectively.

  •   Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    a, Quantification of IC single-trial amplitudes exemplified for three trials from the three different conditions. The color code is as in d. The mean of the ERN preceding (–80–0 ms) and after (85–240 ms) positive peaks was subtracted from the negative peak occurring after each button-press (15–85 ms), giving an amplitude for every single trial. The numbers state the corresponding single-trial amplitude. b, Resulting single-trial amplitudes for a representative subject over the course of ∼250 trials (of 400 trials in total). For visualization, the single single-trial amplitude values are color-coded according to the stimulus–response condition. The color code is as in d. Note the considerable amount of variance within each experimental condition presumably reflecting the varying strength of performance monitoring. c, Single-subject example showing for the incompatible error condition the relationship between single-trial amplitude and reaction time, separately for the current trial (open circles; dashed regression curve) and for the reaction time of the following trial (filled squares; solid regression curve). d, Second-level result across all n = 13 subjects, showing the mean reaction time to single-trial amplitudes slope (+SEM) for all three conditions after removal of outlier (>3 SD) and late feedback trials, separately for the same trial and for the next trial. *p < 0.05.

  •   Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Result of the EEG-informed parametric fMRI analysis based on IC single-trial amplitudes, plotted on an individual brain. fMRI signals correlated with single-trial amplitudes solely in the RCZ along the banks of the cingulate sulcus [center of gravity at coordinates (x, y, z) = 0, 17, 42; z =–3.86]. The left part shows coronal view; the right part shows the sagittal view on the right hemisphere. The red lines on the middle top view inset indicate slice sections. R, Right; L, left; A, anterior; P, posterior.

  •   Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Significant error-related fMRI activations revealed by the conventional random effects analysis contrasting conditions incompatible error versus incompatible correct. a., Anterior; p., posterior; R, right; L, left; ant., anterior; inf., inferior; SFG, superior frontal gyrus; IFS, inferior frontal sulcus.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Results of fMRI analyses

    Coordinates
    Hemisphere xyzzvalue
    Conventional analysis contrasting incompatible error versus incompatible correct
        Rostral cingulate zone (24) Left -2 20 30 4.02*
        Inferior anterior insula Left -29 12 -12 4.63
        Superior frontal gyrus (6/8) Right 12 11 57 3.76*
        Sulcus frontalis inferior (9/46) Left -29 36 27 3.54*
    EEG-informed analysis
        Rostral cingulate zone (32/6/8) 0 17 42 -3.86*
    • The table shows conventional random effects analysis modeling compatible correct, incompatible correct, and incompatible error trials with separate onset vectors. Contrast incompatible correct versus compatible correct is shown. Parametric analysis used single-trial amplitude quantification of error-related independent component of the EEG data set. Brodmann areas are in parentheses. *p<0.001 and spatial extent criterion met.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • supplemental material - Supplemental figures
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 25 (50)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 25, Issue 50
14 Dec 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Trial-by-Trial Coupling of Concurrent Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies the Dynamics of Performance Monitoring
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Trial-by-Trial Coupling of Concurrent Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies the Dynamics of Performance Monitoring
Stefan Debener, Markus Ullsperger, Markus Siegel, Katja Fiehler, D. Yves von Cramon, Andreas K. Engel
Journal of Neuroscience 14 December 2005, 25 (50) 11730-11737; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3286-05.2005

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Trial-by-Trial Coupling of Concurrent Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies the Dynamics of Performance Monitoring
Stefan Debener, Markus Ullsperger, Markus Siegel, Katja Fiehler, D. Yves von Cramon, Andreas K. Engel
Journal of Neuroscience 14 December 2005, 25 (50) 11730-11737; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3286-05.2005
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Identification and Characterization of a Sleep-Active Cell Group in the Rostral Medullary Brainstem
  • Gravin Orchestrates Protein Kinase A and β2-Adrenergic Receptor Signaling Critical for Synaptic Plasticity and Memory
  • Generation of Intensity Selectivity by Differential Synaptic Tuning: Fast-Saturating Excitation But Slow-Saturating Inhibition
Show more Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.