Abstract:Monitoring errors consumes limited cognitive resources and can disrupt subsequent task performance in multitasking scenarios. However, there is a dearth of empirical evidence concerning this interference with prospective estimation of time. In this study, we sought to investigate this issue through a serial multitasking experiment, employing a temporal bisection task as the primary task. We introduced two task contexts by implementing two different concurrent tasks. In one context, participants were tasked with discriminating the size difference between two visual items, while in the other context, they were required to judge the temporal order of similar visual items. The primary task remained the same for the entire experiment. Psychophysical metrics, including subjective bias (determined by the bisection point) and temporal sensitivity (measured by the Weber ratio), in addition to reaction time, remained unaltered in the primary task regardless of the perceptual context exerted by the concurrent tasks. However, commission of error in the concurrent tasks (i.e., non-specific errors) led to a right-ward shift in the bisection point, indicating underestimation of time after errors. Applying a drift-diffusion framework for temporal decision making, we observed alterations in the starting point and drift rate parameters, supporting the error-induced underestimation of time. The error-induced effects were all diminished with increasing a delay between the primary and concurrent task, indicating an adaptive response to errors at a trial level. Furthermore, the error-induced shift in the bisection point was diminished in the second half of the experiment, probably because of a decline in error significance and subsequent monitoring response. These findings indicate that non-specific errors impact the prospective estimation of time in multitasking scenarios, yet their effects can be alleviated through both local and global reallocation of cognitive resources from error processing to time processing.

Correction: An adaptive paradigm for detecting the individual duration of the preparatory period in the choice reaction time task

Correction: Addition of angled rungs to the horizontal ladder walking task for more sensitive probing of sensorimotor changes.

Error modulates categorization of subsecond durations in multitasking contexts

Neural correlates of error detection during complex response selection: Introduction of a novel eight-alternative response task

Can Short-term Mindfulness Training Improve Response Inhibition: A Pilot ERP Study

Correction: Basal ganglia role in learning rewarded actions and executing previously learned choices: Healthy and diseased states

Decoding the task specificity of post-error adjustments: features and determinants

A new foreperiod effect on single-trial phase coherence. Part I: existence and relevance

The influence of error detection and error significance on neural and behavioral correlates of error processing in a complex choice task

Correction: Visual orientation discrimination skills are tightly linked with specific aspects of human intelligence

Erratum: Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice

Mistakes were made: neural mechanisms for the adaptive control of action initiation by the medial prefrontal cortex

How Participants Respond to Computer Delays

Upshifted decision criteria in attentional blink and repetition blindness

Perturbation context in paced finger tapping tunes the error-correction mechanism

Post-error adjustments occur in both reaching and grasping

The Development of Cognitive Control in Preschoolers and Kindergarteners: The Case of Post-Error Slowing and Delayed Disinhibition

Simple Human Response Times are Governed by Dual Anticipatory Processes with Distinct and Distributed Neural Signatures

Intertrial RT variability affects level of target-related interference in cued task switching

Neural spatio-temporal patterns of information processing related to cognitive conflict and correct or false recognitions

When is the Right Time? A Little Later! Delayed Responses Show Better Temporal Control