% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Stahl:887717,
      author       = {Stahl, Jutta and Mattes, André and Hundrieser, Manuela and
                      Kummer, Kilian and Mück, Markus and Niessen, Eva and Porth,
                      Elisa and Siswandari, Yohana and Wolters, Peter and Dummel,
                      Sebastian},
      title        = {{N}eural correlates of error detection during complex
                      response selection: {I}ntroduction of a novel
                      eight-alternative response task},
      journal      = {Biological psychology},
      volume       = {156},
      issn         = {0301-0511},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-04374},
      pages        = {107969 -},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {Error processing in complex decision tasks should be more
                      difficult compared to a simple and commonly used two-choice
                      task. We developed an eight-alternative response task
                      (8ART), which allowed us to investigate different aspects of
                      error detection. We analysed event-related potentials (ERP;
                      N = 30). Interestingly, the response time moderated several
                      findings. For example, only for fast responses, we observed
                      the well-known effect of larger error negativity (Ne) in
                      signalled and non-signalled errors compared to correct
                      responses, but not for slow responses. We identified at
                      least two different error sources due to post-experimental
                      reports and certainty ratings: impulsive (fast) errors and
                      (slow) memory errors. Interestingly, the participants were
                      able to perform the task and to identify both, impulsive and
                      memory errors successfully. Preliminary evidence indicated
                      that early (Ne-related) error processing was not sensitive
                      to memory errors but to impulsive errors, whereas the error
                      positivity seemed to be sensitive to both error types.},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:33058968},
      UT           = {WOS:000582675900014},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107969},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/887717},
}