Dans un environnement imprévisible, l'homme n'est pas toujours capable d'adapter son comportement à une situation donnée et commet alors des erreurs. Dans environ 95% des cas, ces erreurs sont commises consciemment. Cependant, le traitement de l'erreur par le cerveau ne s'opère pas de façon binaire. En effet, l'enregistrement de l'activité électromyographique (EMG) des muscles effecteurs des réponses, révèle, dans environ 15% des essais, une amorce de réponse incorrecte, une ébauche d'erreur. Dans ces essais, les sujets ont été capables de détecter, d'inhiber et de corriger leurs ébauches d'erreurs avant de produire la réponse correcte. Ces processus nécessitent-ils l'intervention de la conscience ? Quels en sont les marqueurs ?Nous montrons dans une première étude que les sujets sont capables d'une détection consciente de leurs ébauches d'erreurs dans un faible nombre de cas seulement (environ 30%). Nous mettons en évidence deux prédicteurs d'une telle détection : la taille de la bouffée EMG associée à l'ébauche d'erreur ainsi que le temps mis par les sujets, depuis le début de cette bouffée, pour la corriger et fournir la réponse correcte. Dans une deuxième étude, nous montrons qu'un indice électroencéphalographique (EEG), la Négativité d'erreur (Ne), pourrait servir de stimulus interne pour le cerveau, à la détection consciente des ébauches d'erreurs et des erreurs. Leur accès conscient interviendrait plus tardivement dans les ébauches d'erreurs que dans les erreurs, mais serait reflété dans les deux cas par des activités EEG similaires, la Positivité d'erreur (Pe). Ainsi, la correction des ébauches d'erreurs interfère avec leur accès conscient en le ralentissant. / In an unpredictable environment, man is not always able to adapt its behavior to a given situation and then makes mistakes. In about 95% of cases, these mistakes are made consciously. However, error processing in the brain does not occur in binary mode . Indeed, the recording of the electromyographic (EMG) activity of muscles involved in responses, reveals that, in about 15 % of the trials, there is a subthreshold incorrect EMG activity, called partial error, that precede the correct one. In these trials, the subjects were able to detect, inhibit their partial errors and correct them to produce the correct response.Does these processes require intervention of consciousness? What are the related markers ?We show in a first study that subjects are capable of conscious detection of their partial errors in a small number of cases (about 30 %).We highlight two predictors of such detection : the size of the EMG burst associated with the partial error and the time taken by the subjects, since EMG onset , to correct and to provide the correct response.In a second study , we show that an electroencephalographic (EEG) index, the error negativity (Ne) , could serve as an internal stimulus to the brain, for conscious detection of errors and partial errors. Their conscious access would occur later in partial errors than errors but would be reflected in both cases by similar a similar EEG activity, the error positivity (Pe). Thus, correction of partial errors interfere with their conscious access by slowing it.

Moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (M/S TBI) is a growing public health concern with significant impact on the cognitive functioning of survivors. Cognitive control and deficits in awareness have been linked to poor recovery and rehabilitation outcomes. One way to research cognitive control is through awareness of errors using electroencephalogram and event-related potentials (ERPs). Both the error-related negativity and the post-error positivity components of the ERP are linked to error awareness and cognitive control processes. Attentional capacity and levels of apathy influence error awareness in those with M/S TBI. There are strong links between awareness, attention, and apathy. However, limited research has examined the role of attention, awareness, and apathy using electrophysiological indices of error awareness to further understand cognitive control in a M/S TBI sample. The current study sought to elucidate the role of apathy in error awareness in those with M/S TBI. Participants included 75 neurologically-healthy controls (divided randomly into two control groups) and 24 individuals with M/S TBI. All participants completed self-report measures of mood, apathy, and executive functioning, as well as a brief neuropsychological battery to measure attention and cognitive ability. To measure awareness, participants completed the error awareness task (EAT), a modified Stroop go/no-go task. Participants signaled awareness of errors committed on the previous trial. The M/S TBI group decreased accuracy while improving or maintaining error awareness compared to controls over time. There were no significant between-group differences for ERN and Pe amplitudes. Levels of apathy in the M/S TBI group were included in three multiple regression analyses predicting proportion of unaware errors, ERN amplitude, and Pe amplitude. Apathy was predictive of error awareness, although not in the predicted direction. Major analyses were replicated using two distinct control groups to determine potential sample effects. Results showed consistent results comparing both control groups to a M/S TBI group. Findings show variable levels of awareness and accuracy over time for those with M/S TBI when compared to controls. Conclusions include varying levels of attention and awareness from the M/S TBI group over time, evidenced by improving awareness of errors when they are happening, but an inability to regulate performance sufficiently to improve accuracy. Levels of apathy are playing a role in error awareness, however, not in predicted directions. The study provides support for the role of attentional impairments in error awareness and encourages future studies to look for varying levels of performance within a given task when using populations linked to elevated levels of apathy and attentional deficits.