Prospective issues for error detection

Blavier, Adélaïde; Rouy, Emmanuelle; Nyssen, Anne‐Sophie; De Keyser, Véronique · 2005 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1080/00140130500123670

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the under-researched mechanisms of error detection and recovery, arguing that the field has shifted from error prevention to error management. The authors posit that error detection is the critical first step in error handling and is fundamentally linked to the concept of intention. By integrating theories of prospective memory (PM) and error-related brain activity, the paper aims to identify cognitive and neural factors that facilitate an individual’s ability to detect their own errors. The authors conduct a theoretical review, synthesizing existing literature on error classification, detection strategies, and PM. They utilize Reason’s (1990) taxonomy, which distinguishes between mistakes (planning errors), lapses (retention failures), and slips (execution errors), to analyze detection processes. The study examines behavioral detection mechanisms, such as action-based detection (monitoring the action itself) and outcome-based detection (monitoring results), alongside neural evidence from event-related potential (ERP) studies. Specifically, the authors analyze the Error-Related Negativity (ERN) and Error Positivity (PE) waves to understand the timing and nature of neural monitoring. They also apply Ellis’s (1996) model of prospective memory, focusing on intention formation, retention, retrieval, and output monitoring. The review finds that intention serves as the central reference point for detecting mismatches between expected and actual actions. Slips are typically detected via action-based mechanisms or internal feedback, often involving pre-attentional control processes reflected by the ERN wave, which signals execution control rather than conscious detection. In contrast, mistakes are harder to detect because they do not conflict with the executed plan; they often require outcome-based detection or external intervention. The PE wave is identified as the neural marker for conscious error detection, appearing only after an error has occurred and not during corrected "error sketches." The authors highlight that PM mechanisms, particularly intention persistence and output monitoring, allow for spontaneous error detection by maintaining the intention in memory until the goal is achieved. The significance of this work lies in its proposal of an integrated model linking error detection to prospective memory and neural activity. By emphasizing the role of intention and frontal lobe involvement, the paper suggests that error detection is not merely a reactive process but is supported by active monitoring systems. This perspective implies that improving error detection may require enhancing intention maintenance and output monitoring capabilities, offering new avenues for designing systems that support human performance and safety.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• prospective memory interruptions