Top

Psychological Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

19-03-2021 | Original Article

Partial repetition between action plans delays responses to ideomotor compatible stimuli

Auteurs: Lisa R. Fournier, Benjamin P. Richardson

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2022

Abstract

Often one must depart from an intended course of events to react to sudden situational demands before resuming his or her original action retained in working memory. Retaining an action plan in working memory (WM) can delay or facilitate the execution of an intervening action when the action features of the two action plans partly overlap (partial repetition) compared to when they do not overlap. We investigated whether partial repetition costs (PRCs) or benefits (PRBs) occur when the intervening event is an ideomotor-compatible stimulus that is a biological representation of the response required by the participant. Participants viewed two visual events and retained an action plan to the first event (A) while executing a speeded response to the second, intervening event (B). In Experiment 1A, the two visual events were ideomotor compatible, non-ideomotor compatible (abstract), or one was ideomotor compatible, and the other abstract. Results showed PRCs for all event A–B stimulus combinations with reduced PRCs for intervening, ideomotor compatible events. In contrast to previous research, there was no evidence that ideomotor-compatible actions were automatic and bypassed the selection bottleneck. Experiment 1B confirmed PRCs for ideomotor compatible stimuli that more accurately mimicked the required response. Findings suggest that mechanisms for activating, selecting, and retaining action plans are similar between ideomotor compatible and abstract visual events. We conclude that PRCs occur in response to intervening events when action plans are generated offline and rely on WM, including those for ideomotor-compatible stimuli; but PRBs may be restricted to actions generated online. This conclusion is consistent with the perceptual-motor framework by Goodale and Milner (Trends in Neuroscience 15:22–25, 1992).

vorige artikel Emotional mental imagery generation during spontaneous future thinking: relationship with optimism and negative mood

volgende artikel The influence of object size on second-order planning in an overturned cup task

Responses were only defined by execution of the second keypress response in Experiment 1A, and hence RT for the first keypress was not available. However, the first and second keypress RTs were recorded and are reported in Experiment 1B.

Assessing response accuracy to event A was necessary to ensure participants retained the action plan to the first event in memory while executing their response to the interruption (event B). The response accuracy results for event A have to be interpreted with caution as participant inclusion required that they achieve 80% accuracy. Also, we did not analyze RT for event A for two reasons. First, we asked participants to take their time to respond to event A in order to respond as accurately as possible. They were also told that we were not concerned with how fast they responded to event A, only how accurate they responded. Second, RT for event A was confounded with responses executed to event B. That is, when there was action overlap (i.e., responses to events A and B shared the same response hand), the motor response for event A had to wait for the response to event B to finish before it could start; but when there was no action overlap, the motor response for event A did not necessarily have to wait for the motor response to event B to finish before it could start.

Similar to Experiment 1A, RTs to the second key press are shown. RTs to the first keypress were 161–171 ms faster than the second keypress for all three conditions. RTs to the first keypress were 646 ms, 690 ms, and 718 ms for the no retention, no overlap, and partial overlap conditions respectively.

Barber, P., & O’Leary, M. (1997). The relevance of salience: towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. Advances in Psychology, 118, 135–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(97)80031-3. CrossRef

Behmer, L. P., & Fournier, L. R. (2014). Working memory modulates neural efficiency over motor components during a novel action planning task: An EEG study. Behavioural Brain Research, 260, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.11.031. CrossRefPubMed

Behmer, L. P., & Fournier, L. R. (2016). Mirror neuron activation as a function of explicit learning: changes in mu-event-related power after learning novel responses to ideomotor compatible, partially compatible, and non-compatible stimuli. European Journal of Neuroscience, 44(10), 2774–2785. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13389. CrossRef

Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00024-X. CrossRefPubMed

Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2000.1225. CrossRefPubMed

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010. CrossRef

Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transients and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00466-5. CrossRefPubMed

Cattaneo, L., Caruana, F., Jezzini, A., & Rizzolatti, G. (2009). Representation of goal and movements without overt motor behavior in the human motor cortex: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(36), 11134–11138. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2605-09.2009. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chiavarino, C., Bugiani, S., Grandi, E., & Colle, L. (2013). Is automatic imitation based on goal coding or movement coding? A comparison of goal-directed and goal-less actions. Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000190. CrossRefPubMed

Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Desmet, C., Genschow, O., Rigoni, D., De Coster, L., et al. (2018). Automatic imitation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(5), 453–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000143. CrossRefPubMed

Eimer, M., Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1995). SR compatibility and response selection. Acta Psychologica, 90(1), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00022-M. CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. CrossRef

Fournier, L. R., Behmer, L. P., Jr., & Stubblefield, A. M. (2014a). Interference due to shared features between action plans is influenced by working memory span. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 1524–1529. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0627-0. CrossRefPubMed

Fournier, L. R., Gallimore, J. M., Feiszli, K. R., & Logan, G. D. (2014b). On the importance of being first: serial order effects in the interaction between action plans and ongoing actions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(1), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0486-0. CrossRefPubMed

Fournier, L. R., Hansen, D. A., Stubblefield, & Van Dongen, H. (2020). Action plan interrupted: resolution of proactive interference while coordinating execution of multiple action plans during sleep deprivation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84, 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1054-z. CrossRefPubMed

Fournier, L. R., Wiediger, M. D., McMeans, R., Mattson, P. S., Kirkwood, J., & Herzog, T. (2010). Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 74, 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0256-9. CrossRefPubMed

Fournier, L. R., Wiediger, M. D., & Taddese, E. F. (2015). Action plans can interact to hinder or facilitate reach performance. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 77, 2755–2767. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0959-5. CrossRef

Glover, G. H. (1999). Deconvolution of impulse response in event-related BOLD fMRI. Neuroimage, 9(4), 416–429. CrossRef

Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(7), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01920-4. CrossRefPubMed

Glover, S. (2004). Planning and control in action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04520022. CrossRef

Glover, S., Wall, M. B., & Smith, A. T. (2012). Distinct cortical networks support the planning and online control of reaching-to-grasp in humans. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35(6), 909–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08018.x. CrossRef

Gonzalez, C., Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. (2006). Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 3496–3501. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01187.2005. CrossRefPubMed

Goodale, M. A. (2016). How (and why) the visual control of action differs from visual perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 281, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0337. CrossRef

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67, 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00017-1. CrossRef

Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience, 15, 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8. CrossRef

Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77(2), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028689. CrossRefPubMed

Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57. CrossRef

Greenwald, A. G. (2003). On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 859–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.859. CrossRefPubMed

Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035451. CrossRefPubMed

Halvorson, K. M., Ebner, H., & Hazeltine, E. (2013). Investigating perfect timesharing: The relationship between IM-compatible tasks and dualtask performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029475. CrossRefPubMed

Heyes, C. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(4), 575–583. CrossRef

Heyes, C. (2011). Automatic imitation. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022288. CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2003). Planning and representing intentional action. The Scientific World Journal, 3, 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2003.46. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007. CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1067–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1067. CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(4), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2. CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2019). Theory of Event Coding (TEC) V2.0: representing and controlling perception and action. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 81, 2139–2154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01779-4. CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioural Brain Science, 24, 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103. CrossRef

Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2012). On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Journal of Psychology, 220, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000086. CrossRef

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253. CrossRefPubMed

Landmann, C., Landi, S. M., Grafton, S. T., & Della-Maggiore, V. (2011). fMRI supports the sensorimotor theory of motor resonance. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e26859. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026859. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lien, M. C., McCann, R. S., Ruthruff, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Confirming and disconfirming theories about ideomotor compatibility in dual-task performance: a reply to Greenwald (2005). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.226. CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M. C., Proctor, R. W., & Allen, P. A. (2002). Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.2.396. CrossRefPubMed

Maquestiaux, F., Ruthruf, E., Defer, A., & Ibrahime, S. (2018). Dualtask automatization: the key role of sensory-motor modality compatibility. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 80(3), 752–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1469-4. CrossRef

Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2009). Movements, actions and tool-use actions: an ideomotor approach to imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1528), 2349–2358. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0059. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Masson, M. E., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087426. CrossRefPubMed

Mattson, P. S., Fournier, L. R., & Behmer, L. P., Jr. (2012). Frequency of the first feature in action sequences influences feature binding. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 1446–1460. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0335-7. CrossRef

Passingham, R. E., & Toni, I. (2001). Contrasting the dorsal and ventral visual systems: guidance of movement versus decision making. Neuroimage, 14, S125–S131. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0836. CrossRefPubMed

Passingham, R. E., Toni, I., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2000). Specialization within the prefrontal cortex: the ventral prefrontal cortex and associative learning. Experimental Brain Research, 133, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000405. CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2117–2121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613489139. CrossRefPubMed

Press, C., Catmur, C., Cook, R., Widmann, H., Heyes, C., & Bird, G. (2012). fMRI evidence of ‘mirror’ responses to geometric shapes. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051934. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713752551. CrossRef

Proctor, R.W., & Vu, K-P.L. (2006). Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application. CRC Press

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P.L. (2016). Principles for designing interfaces compatible with human information processing. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1105009. CrossRef

Richardson, B., Pfister, R., & Fournier, L. R. (2020). Free-choice and forced-choice actions: shared representations and conservation of cognitive effort. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. https://doi.org/10.3757/s13414-020-01986-4. CrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/35090060. CrossRefPubMed

Shin, Y. K., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Testing boundary conditions of the ideomotor hypothesis using a delayed response task. Acta Psychologica, 141, 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.008. CrossRefPubMed

Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541. CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1625. CrossRef

Sun, D., Custers, R., Marien, H., & Aarts, H. (2020). Ideomotor action: Evidence for automaticity in learning, but not execution. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00185. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thomaschke, R., Hopkins, B., & Miall, R. C. (2012a). The planning and control model (PCM) of motorvisual priming: reconciling motorvisual impairment and facilitation effects. Psychological Review, 119(2), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027453. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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(2), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024794. CrossRefPubMed

Valyear, K. F., & Culham, J. C. (2010). Observing learned object-specific functional grasps preferentially activates the ventral stream. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(5), 970–984. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21256. CrossRefPubMed

Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Wiediger, M. D., & Fournier, L. R. (2008). An action sequence withheld in memory can delay execution of visually guided actions: the generalization of response compatibility interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1136–1149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1136. CrossRefPubMed

Wise, S. P., Di Pellegrino, G., & Boussaoud, D. (1996). The premotor cortex and nonstandard sensorimotor mapping. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 74(4), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1139/y96-035. CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Partial repetition between action plans delays responses to ideomotor compatible stimuli
Auteurs: Lisa R. Fournier
Benjamin P. Richardson
Publicatiedatum: 19-03-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01491-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2022

Age-related changes in visual encoding strategy preferences during a spatial memory task

What am I doing? It depends: agency and action identification

The effect of pain on reference memory for duration

Effects of temporal order and intentionality on reflective attention to words in noise

What factors influence the switch from unitary to divided attention?

Temporal context effects are associated with cognitive status in advanced age