{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02862595419847328, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019083969465648854, 'mean_word_length': 5.639240506329114, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Enhanced error-related negativity on flanker errors: error expectancy or error significance?

The present study investigated whether the error-related negativity, an electrophysiological marker for performance monitoring, reflects (1) the expectancy of errors, or (2) the significance of errors for the current task goal. In the first case, a larger error-related negativity is predicted for less expected errors, whereas in the second case, a larger error-related negativity is predicted for errors with greater significance. To test these predictions, we varied flanker size in a flanker task. With large flankers, more errors occurred by executing the response associated with the flankers (flanker errors) leading to a greater expectancy of flanker errors. As revealed by a multinomial model, these additional flanker errors represented highly significant attention errors, leading to an increased error significance. The error-related negativity was larger for flanker errors with large flankers, which supports the error significance account.