Error observation as a window on performance monitoring in social contexts? A systematic review.

Living in a social world requires social monitoring, i.e., the ability to keep track of others' actions and mistakes. Here, we demonstrate the good reliability of the behavioral and neurophysiological indexes ascribed to social monitoring. We also show that no consensus exists on the cognitive bases of this phenomenology and discuss three alternative hypotheses: (i) the direct matching hypothesis, postulating that observed errors are processed through automatic simulation; (ii) the attentional hypothesis, considering errors as unexpected events that take resources away from task processing; and (iii) the goal representation hypothesis, which weighs social error monitoring depending on how relevant the other's task is to the observer's goals. To date, evidence on the role played by factors that could help to disentangle these hypotheses (e.g., the human vs. non-human nature of the actor, the error rate, and the reward context) is insufficient, although the goal representation hypothesis seems to receive more support. Theory-driven experimental designs are needed to enlighten this debate and clarify the role of error monitoring during interactive exchanges.

The unexplored link between aesthetic perception and creativity: A theory-driven meta-analysis of fMRI studies in the visual domain.

Creative production (related to art-making) and aesthetic appreciation (related to art-viewing) are inherently linked in visual arts, but their relationship has never been explored explicitly in cognitive neuroscience, nor the nature of such connection. The available literature suggests two cognitive processes as possible foundations of these two experiences: motor simulation or inhibitory control. In a meta-analysis of fMRI studies, we addressed this issue: we investigated whether there are shared neurofunctional underpinnings behind aesthetic and creative experiences in the visual domain; further, we examined whether any shared brain activation may reflect either motor simulation or inhibitory processes. A conjunction analysis revealed a common involvement of the pre-SMA in both classes of studies, a brain region, if anything, more concerned with top-down inhibitory motor and volitional cognitive control rather than bottom-up motor simulation. In the art-viewing domain, this finding was primarily driven by figurative rather than abstract art. The methodological limitations in the available literature are discussed together with possible new ways to expand the existing findings.

How shared goals shape action monitoring.

Cooperation triggers expectations on our partners' contributions to achieve a common goal. A partner, however, may sometimes violate such expectations, driving us to perform immediate adjustments. What neurophysiological mechanisms support these adaptations? We tested the hypothesis of an interaction-specific brain system that can decode a partner's error and promote adaptive responses when cooperating toward a shared goal. During functional magnetic resonance imaging, the participants played short melodies with a virtual partner by performing one note each in turn-taking. A colored cue indicated which melody they had to execute at each trial, thus generating expectations on what notes the partner would play. The participants also performed the task in a perceptually matched Non-Interactive context. The results showed that task interactivity modulates the brain responses to a partner's error in dorsal fronto-temporoparietal and medial cingulo-opercular networks. Multivariate pattern analysis revealed that these neural activations reflect deep decoding of the partner's mistake. Within these networks, the automatic tendency to correct the partner's errors, as indexed by specific reaction times adaptations, depended on the activity of a right-lateralized fronto-opercular system that may enable mutual support during real-life cooperation. Future studies may unveil the role of this putative "interaction monitoring" brain system in social dysfunctions and their motor foundations.

Mechanisms for mutual support in motor interactions.

What is the key to successful interaction? Is it sufficient to represent a common goal, or does the way our partner achieves that goal count as well? How do we react when our partner misbehaves? We used a turn-taking music-like task requiring participants to play sequences of notes together with a partner, and we investigated how people adapt to a partner's error that violates their expectations. Errors consisted of either playing a wrong note of a sequence that the agents were playing together (thus preventing the achievement of the joint goal) or playing the expected note with an unexpected action. In both cases, we found post-error slowing and inaccuracy suggesting the participants' implicit tendency to correct the partner's error and produce the action that the partner should have done. We argue that these "joint" monitoring processes depend on the motor predictions made within a (dyadic) motor plan and may represent a basic mechanism for mutual support in motor interactions.