Decoding the dynamics of action, intention, and error detection for conscious and subliminal stimuli.
Lucie Charles, Jean-Rémi King, Stanislas Dehaene
Journal of Neuroscience January 22, 2014 DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.2465-13.2014 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Experimental study using single-trial multivariate decoding of MEG and EEG Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Human participants |
| Keywords | Action Consciousness Error Intention Meeg |
| Key findings | The required response and response accuracy could be decoded only on trials where the masked target digits were consciously seen, while perceptual stimulus information and the actual response hand were decodable on both conscious and non-conscious trials. The authors argue this supports a dual-route model in which explicit error detection requires a conscious representation of the desired response, distinct from the ongoing motor program. |
Abstract
How do we detect our own errors, even before we receive any external feedback? One model hypothesizes that error detection results from the confrontation of two signals: a fast and unconscious motor code, based on a direct sensory-motor pathway; and a slower conscious intention code that computes the required response given the stimulus and task instructions. To test this theory and assess how the chain of cognitive processes leading to error detection is modulated by consciousness, we applied multivariate decoding methods to single-trial magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography data. Human participants performed a fast bimanual number comparison task on masked digits presented at threshold, such that about half of them remained unseen. By using both erroneous and correct trials, we designed orthogonal decoders for the actual response (left or right), the required response (left or right), and the response accuracy (correct or incorrect). While perceptual stimulus information and the actual response hand could be decoded on both conscious and non-conscious trials, the required response could only be decoded on conscious trials. Moreover, whether the current response was correct or incorrect could be decoded only when the target digits were conscious, at a time and with a certainty that varied with the amount of evidence in favor of the correct response. These results are in accordance with the proposed dual-route model of conscious versus nonconscious evidence accumulation, and suggest that explicit error detection is possible only when the brain computes a conscious representation of the desired response, distinct from the ongoing motor program.
Citations in the library
Cited by 15
- An integrative, multiscale view on neural theories of consciousness. Neuron May 15, 2024
- A theory of working memory without consciousness or sustained activity bioRxiv Preprint Server December 14, 2016
- Voluntary control of a phantom limb. Neuropsychologia August 1, 2015
- A late meta-stable code of conscious access in the absence of report bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) February 2, 2026
- Alpha Oscillations Track the Projection of Reactivated Memories into Conscious Awareness. Journal of Neuroscience April 15, 2026
and 10 more in the library
Cites 3
- Error awareness and the error-related negativity: evaluating the first decade of evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience April 17, 2012
- Brain Dynamics Underlying the Nonlinear Threshold for Access to Consciousness PLoS Biology September 25, 2007
- Preserved subliminal processing and impaired conscious access in schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry December 1, 2006