Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
According to the two-stage model of voluntary action, the ability to perform voluntary action is acquired in two sequential steps. Firstly, associations are acquired between representations of movements and of the effects that frequently follow them. Secondly, the anticipation or perception of an acquired action effect primes the movement that has been learnt to produce this effect; the acquired action-effect associations thus mediate the selection of actions that are most appropriate to achieve an intended action goal. If action-effect learning has an associative basis, it should be influenced by factors that are known to affect instrumental learning, such as the temporal contiguity and the probabilistic contingency of movement and effect. In two experiments, the contiguity or the contingency between key presses and subsequent tones was manipulated in various ways. As expected, both factors affected the acquisition of action-effect relations as assessed by the potency of action effects to prime the corresponding action in a later behavioral test. In particular, evidence of action-effect associations was obtained only if the effect of the action was delayed for no more than 1 s, if the effect appeared more often in the presence than in the absence of the action, or if action and effect were entirely uncorrelated but the effect appeared very often. These findings support the assumption that the control of voluntary actions is based on action-effect representations that are acquired by associative learning mechanisms.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147–149.
Allan, L. G. & Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–11.
Brogden, W. J. (1962). Contiguous conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 172–176. PubMed
Chatlosh, D. L., Neunaber, D. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (1985). Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students. Learning and Motivation, 16, 1–34.
Davey, G. C. L. (1983). An associative view of human classical conditioning. In G. C. L. Davey (Ed.), Animal models of human behavior (pp. 95–114). Chichester: Wiley.
Dickinson, A., & Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 397–416.
Dickinson, A., & Shanks, D. R. (1985). Animal conditioning and human causality judgment. In L.-G. Nilsson & T. Archer (Eds.), Perspectives on learning and memory (pp. 167–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3–19. CrossRef
Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (in press). Do I get what you get? Learning about the effects of self-performed and observed actions in infancy. Consciousness & Cognition.
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.
Elsner, B., Hommel, B., Mentschel, C., Drzezga, A., Prinz, W., Conrad, B., & Siebner, H.R. (2002). Linking actions and their perceivable consequences in the human brain. NeuroImage, 17, 364–372. PubMed
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609. PubMed
Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early social-emotional development: Contingency perception and the social biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition (pp. 101–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grice, G. R. (1948). The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1–16.
Gruber, H. E., Fink, C. D. & Damm, V. (1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 89–93. PubMed
Haggard, P., Aschersleben, G., Gehrke, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Action, binding, and awareness. In Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 266–285). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297–304.
Hazeltine, E. (2002). The representational nature of sequence learning: Evidence for goal-based codes. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 673–689). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stoecker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 470–482.
Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.
Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268. PubMed
Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176–186. PubMed
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hommel, B. (1998). Perceiving one’s own action—and what it leads to. In J. S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems theories and a priori aspects of perception (pp. 143–179). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hommel, B. (2003a). Acquisition and control of voluntary action. In S. Maasen, W. Prinz & G. Roth (Eds.), Voluntary action: Brains, minds, and sociality (pp. 34–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hommel, B. (2003b). Coloring an action: Intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect. Psychological Research (in press).
Hommel, B., Alonso, D., & Fuentes, L. (2001). Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Talk presented at the 12th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology. Edinburgh, Scotland, September 2001.
Hume, D. (1739/1964). Treatise of human nature. London: Oxford University Press.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.
Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79, 1–17.
Murata A., Gallese V., Luppino G., Kaseda M., & Sakata H. (2000). Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 2580–2601. PubMed
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
Reed, P. (1992). Effect of a signaled delay between an action and outcome of human judgement of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 81–100.
Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71–80. PubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (1992). Response-outcome vs. outcome-response associations in instrumental learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 20, 223–232.
Rochat, P. (1998). Self-perception and action in infancy. Experimental Brain Research, 123, 102–109. CrossRef
Seggie, J. (1975). The empirical observation of the Piagetian concept of correlation. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 32–42.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L. (1971). Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. In F. R. Brush (Ed.), Aversive conditioning and learning (pp. 347–400). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shaklee, H., & Mims, M. (1982). Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 208–224.
Shaklee, H., & Wasserman, E. A. (1986). Judging interevent contingencies: Being right for the wrong causes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 91–94.
Shaklee, H., Holt, P., Elek S., & Hall, L. (1988). Covariation judgment: Improving rule use among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 59, 755–768.
Shanks, D. R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgment. Memory and Cognition, 17, 27–34.
Shanks, D. R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 319–354. PubMed
Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 21, 229–261.
Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory and Cognition, 19, 353–360.
Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139–159.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304. PubMed
Stock, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2002). Intentional fixation of behavioural learning, or how R-O learning blocks S-R learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 127–153. CrossRef
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625–1640.
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212–222.
Tolman, E. C., Hall, C. S., & Bretnall, E. P. (1932). A disproof of the law of effect and a substitution of the laws of emphasis, motivation and disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 601–614.
Trapold, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different reinforcing events discriminably different? Learning and Motivation, 1, 129–140.
Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. (1996). Associative processes in differential outcome discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 192–204. CrossRef
Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222–236.
Walker, E. L. (1969). Reinforcement—”The one ring.” In J. T. Tapp (Ed.), Reinforcement and behavior (pp. 47–62). New York: Academic Press.
Wasserman, E. A. (1990). Detecting response-outcome relations: Toward an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 27–82.
Wasserman, E. A., & Shaklee, H. (1984). Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation. Memory and Cognition, 12, 270–286.
Young, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 83–104.
Ziessler, M. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 962–978.
Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 595–613.
Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2002). Effect anticipation in action planning. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 645–672). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning