Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The ideomotor theory of action posits that the cognitive representation of an action includes the learned perceptual effects of the action. Support for this theory has come from studies demonstrating how perceptual features that match the outcome of a response can facilitate selection of that response. We investigated another, complementary implication of ideomotor theory: would a bias toward selecting a response result in a perceptual bias toward the known effect of the response? In other words, would an action tendency direct attention to the anticipated perceptual features? Through an initial acquisition phase, participants learned that two possible responses (left/right keypress) consistently produced two distinct colors. Next, in a test phase, we manipulated response bias at the beginning of each trial, using an uninformative spatial prime presented at the left or right periphery. We then examined the extent to which color transients that either matched or mismatched the induced response bias can orient participants’ visual attention. Results revealed a perceptual bias toward the color effect of the primed response, manifested in a stronger visual orienting toward this color. Thus, biasing response selection can bias perception. These findings extend the scope of the ideomotor theory to visual perceptual processes.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allport, A. (1993). Attention and control: Have we been asking the wrong questions? A critical review of twenty-five years. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 183–218). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73. CrossRef
Colzato, L. S., Warrens, M. J., & Hommel, B. (2006). Priming and binding in and across perception and action: a correlational analysis of the internal structure of event files. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1785–1804. CrossRef
Cousineau, D. (2007). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: a simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
Fournier, L. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Bowd, C. (1998). Multiple-feature discrimination faster than single-feature discrimination within the same object. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1384–1405. CrossRef
Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2011). Seeing while acting: hand movements can modulate attention capture by motion onset. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 2448–2456. CrossRef
Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2012). Attentional repulsion effect despite a color-based control set. Visual Cognition, 20, 696–716. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus – response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In B. J. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: a new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 121–140). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521. CrossRef
Hommel, B., & Schneider, W. X. (2002). Visual attention and manual response selection: distinct mechanisms operating on the same codes. Visual Cognition, 9, 392–420. CrossRef
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology: Vol. 2. New York, NY: Holt & Co.
Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1297–1303. CrossRef
Kunde, W., & Stöcker, C. (2002).A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 581–592.
Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2004). Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli. Psychological Research, 68, 199–207. PubMed
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. CrossRef
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207. CrossRef
Müsseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (advances in psychology) (Vol. 129, pp. 121–147). Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossRef
Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect perceptual processing? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 137–154.
Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., Danielmeier, C., & Zysset, S. (2005). Action-induced blindness with lateralized stimuli and responses. Experimental Brain Research, 160, 214–222. CrossRef
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance X: Control of language Processes, 32, 531–556.
Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between Perception and Action (pp. 167–201). New York, NY: Springer.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154. 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. CrossRef
Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 105–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thomaschke, R., Hopkins, B., & Miall, R. C. (2012b). The role of cue-response mapping in motorvisual impairment and facilitation: Evidence for different roles of action planning and action control in motorvisual dual-task priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 336–349. PubMedCrossRef
Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance (Vol 18, pp. 73–103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ziessler, M. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 962–978. CrossRef
Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Seeing while moving: measuring the online influence of action on perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1063–1071. CrossRef
Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010). On interference effects in concurrent perception and action. Psychological Research, 74, 152–171.
- Ideomotor perception modulates visuospatial cueing
Davood G. Gozli
Stephanie C. Goodhew
Joshua B. Moskowitz
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg