Error-Related Negativity (ERN) as a Neural Сorrelate of Executive Functions: A Narrative Review

Executive functions are a set of high-level cognitive processes that regulate human behavior and cognition, and are necessary for adaptive and goal-directed behavior. The error monitoring process can be considered as a condition preceding the enhancement or activation of executive control. The neural correlate of this condition is the error-related negativity (ERN). This article presents a narrative review of research investigating cognitive and affective aspects of the error monitoring process in the context of executive functions using the ERN. The literature review on the affective aspect revealed a diversity of approaches to influencing the state of participants. Most works take into account information about participants' state or affectively salient aspects of stimuli perception. However, this information may not be sufficient to establish a link to the response to conflict induced by an error in an experimental task. Presumably, the general emotional state has only an indirect influence on the error monitoring process. This may be the reason for the inconsistent results observed in this area of research.

1. Nunez-Estupinan X., Berticelli L.Z., de Almeida R.M.M., Gauer G. Aversiveness of errors and the error-related negativity (ERN): A systematic review on the affective states’ manipulations findings. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2022. Vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 754—776. DOI:10.3758/s13415-022-01002-2
2. Baddeley A. Working memory. In Baddeley A., Eysenck M.W., Anderson M.C. (eds.), Memory. London: Routledge, 2020, pp. 71—111.
3. Clayson P.E., Larson M.J. The impact of recent and concurrent affective context on cognitive control: An ERP study of performance monitoring. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2019. Vol. 143, pp. 44—56. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.06.007
4. Coleman J.R., Watson J.M., Strayer D.L. Working memory capacity and task goals modulate error‐related ERPs. Psychophysiology, 2018. Vol. 55, no. 3, article ID e12805. 14 p. DOI:10.1111/psyp.12805
5. Steinhauser R., Wirth R., Kunde W., Janczyk M., Steinhauser M. Common mechanisms in error monitoring and action effect monitoring. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2018. Vol. 18, pp. 1159—1171. DOI:10.3758/s13415-018-0628-y
6. Cristofori I., Cohen-Zimerman S., Grafman J. Executive functions. In Aminoff M.J., Boller F., Swaab D.F. (ser. eds.), Handbook of clinical neurology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019. Vol. 163, pp. 197—219. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-804281-6.00011-2
7. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 2013. Vol. 64, pp. 135—168. DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
8. Diamond A. Executive functions. In Aminoff M.J., Boller F., Swaab D.F. (ser. eds.), Handbook of clinical neurology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2020. Vol. 173, pp. 225—240. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-64150-2.00020-4
9. Hobson N.M., Saunders B., Al-Khindi T., Inzlicht M. Emotion down-regulation diminishes cognitive control: a neurophysiological investigation. Emotion, 2014. Vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1014—1026. DOI:10.1037/a0038028
10. Maier M., Scarpazza C., Starita F., Filogamo R., Làdavas E. Error monitoring is related to processing internal affective states. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2016. Vol. 16, pp. 1050—1062. DOI:10.3758/s13415-016-0452-1
11. Suzuki T., Oumeziane B.A., Novak K., Samuel D.B., Foti D. Error-monitoring across social and affective processing contexts. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2020. Vol. 150, pp. 37—49. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.01.009
12. Chen N., Lu J., Jin L., Li X. High emotion-control value reduces error-detection impairment following emotion suppression: an event-related potential study. NeuroReport, 2017. Vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 760—765. DOI:10.1097/WNR.0000000000000840
13. Salehinejad M.A., Ghanavati E., Rashid M.H.A., Nitsche M.A. Hot and cold executive functions in the brain: A prefrontal-cingular network. Brain and Neuroscience Advances, 2021. Vol. 5, article ID 23982128211007769. 19 p. DOI:10.1177/23982128211007769
14. Ikeda K., Hasegawa T. Task confusion after switching revealed by reductions of error‐related ERP components. Psychophysiology, 2012. Vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 427—440. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01295.x
15. Kihlstrom J.F. Ecological validity and “ecological validity”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2021. Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 466—471. DOI:10.1177/17456916209667
16. Maier M.E., Steinhauser M. Working memory load impairs the evaluation of behavioral errors in the medial frontal cortex. Psychophysiology, 2017. Vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1472—1482. DOI:10.1111/psyp.12899
17. Arake M., Ohta H., Tsuruhara A., Kobayashi Y., Shinomiya N., Masaki H., Morimoto Y. Measuring task-related brain activity with event-related potentials in dynamic task scenario with immersive virtual reality environment. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2022. Vol. 16, article ID 779926. 9 p. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2022.779926
18. Miller A.E., Watson J.M., Strayer D.L. Individual differences in working memory capacity predict action monitoring and the error-related negativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2012. Vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 757—763. DOI:10.1037/a0026595
19. Paul K., Walentowska W., Bakic J., Dondaine T., Pourtois G. Modulatory effects of happy mood on performance monitoring: Insights from error-related brain potentials. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2017. Vol. 17, pp. 106—123. DOI:10.3758/s13415-016-0466-8
20. Nigbur R., Ullsperger M. Funny kittens: Positive mood induced via short video-clips affects error processing but not conflict control. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2020. Vol. 147, pp. 147—155. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.11.007
21. Pailing P.E., Segalowitz S.J. The effects of uncertainty in error monitoring on associated ERPs. Brain and cognition, 2004. Vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 215—233. DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.06.005
22. Saunders B., Milyavskaya M., Inzlicht M. What does cognitive control feel like? Effective and ineffective cognitive control is associated with divergent phenomenology. Psychophysiology, 2015. Vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1205—1217. DOI:10.1111/psyp.12454
23. Steinhauser M., Andersen S.K. Rapid adaptive adjustments of selective attention following errors revealed by the time course of steady-state visual evoked potentials. Neuroimage, 2019. Vol. 186, pp. 83—92. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.059
24. Xiao Y., Ma F., Lv Y., Cai G., Teng P., Xu F., Chen S. Sustained attention is associated with error processing impairment: evidence from mental fatigue study in four-choice reaction time task. PloS one, 2015. Vol. 10, no. 3, article ID e0117837. 15 p. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117837
25. Gehring W.J., Liu Y., Orr J.M., Carp J. The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In Luck S.J., Kappenman E.S. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 231—291. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0120
26. Overmeyer R., Berghäuser J., Dieterich R., Wolff M., Goschke T., Endrass T. The error-related negativity predicts self-control failures in daily life. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. Vol. 14, article ID 614979. 12 p. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2020.614979
27. LoTemplio S., Silcox J., Murdock R., Strayer D., Payne B. To err is human‐to understand error‐processing is divine: Contributions of working memory and anxiety to error‐related brain and pupil responses. Psychophysiology, 2023. Vol. 60, no. 12, article ID e14392. 21 p. DOI:10.1111/psyp.14392
28. Ward J. The student's guide to cognitive neuroscience. London: Routledge, 2019. 538 p.
29. Weaver M.D., Hickey C., Van Zoest W. The impact of salience and visual working memory on the monitoring and control of saccadic behavior: An eye‐tracking and EEG study. Psychophysiology, 2017. Vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 544—554. DOI:10.1111/psyp.12817
30. Yeung N. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. In Ochsner K.N., Kosslyn S.M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Vol. 2: The Cutting Edges, pp. 275—299. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199988709.013.0018