Schedule of Events | Symposia

Individual differences in post-error slowing: the role of working memory capacity and positive schizotypy

Poster Session B - Sunday, March 30, 2025, 8:00 – 10:00 am EDT, Back Bay Ballroom/Republic Ballroom

Wanchen Zhao¹ (wanchen.zhao@yale.edu), Samuel McDougle², Tyrone Cannon³; ¹Yale University

Why do we slow down after an error? The cognitive control account attributes post-error slowing (PES) to working memory (WM) recruitment to optimize future performance, while the orienting account argues for distraction from unexpected errors. Though seemingly contradictory, these hypotheses may jointly explain PES: errors initially distract and then prompt WM engagement with previous trials. Positive schizotypy, involving impaired WM and inflexible expectations, provides a framework to explore WM capacity and distraction in PES. In this study, 153 participants from Prolific completed a reinforcement learning task, where they learned the stimulus-response association through trial and error. Participants reported schizotypy using the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale - Brief. We modeled individual WM capacity parameters with Reinforcement Learning Working Memory (RLWM) model and analyzed results with mixed-effects linear regression and robust regression. Participants slowed down more after errors when they had accumulated more correct responses for a stimulus (reward) or when the same stimulus was presented further in the past (delay). In a robust regression, PES was most strongly associated with learning rate from negative feedback, while WM decay rate was linked to reduced PES. Higher positive schizotypy is associated with less PES and higher WM decay, but intact learning rate from positive feedback. Effects of reward and delay from our results suggest both cognitive control and orienting accounts can explain PES in general. WM decay rate largely accounts for attenuated PES in positive schizotypy.

Topic Area: EXECUTIVE PROCESSES: Working memory