Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Voluntary action control is accomplished through anticipating that action’s perceptual outcomes. Some evidence suggests that this is only true when responses are intention-based rather than stimulus-based and that this difference is evidence of different response modes. More recently, however, it has been shown that response-outcome retrieval effects can occur with stimulus-based responses, and that the retrieval depended on response selection efficiency as decreasing the response selection efficiency increased response-outcome retrieval (Gozli et al., J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform, 2016). We look to extend this finding by manipulating response selection difficulty within (Experiment 1) or between blocks (Experiment 2) and response preparation time (Experiment 1) within an experiment. Individuals completed a task in which they responded to onsets using the spatially corresponding finger. The onset was preceded by precues narrowing down the response possibilities from four to two. The response possibilities were either on the same hand or different hands, such that response selection was easy or hard. We also varied the amount of time between the cues and the targets to manipulate response preparation time. The results indicated that trial-by-trial manipulations of response selection difficulty did not influence response-outcome retrieval, but that the between groups manipulation of response preparation time did. With less time response preparation time, larger response-outcome compatibility effects were found. This study presents further evidence that response selection efficiency can influence response-outcome retrieval and that this difference can be accounted for in terms of how prepared the responses are at the time of target presentation.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 302–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00516-9. CrossRef
Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109(3), 285–99. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11881904.
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect Anticipation and Action Control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229–240.
Francis, G. (2012). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 975–991. CrossRef
Gozli, D. G., & Ansorge, U. (2016). Action selection as a guide for visual attention. Visual Cognition, 24(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1176095. CrossRef
Gozli, D. G., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2016). Acting and Anticipating: Impact of Outcome-Compatible Distractor Depends on Response Selection Efficiency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 94(1), 52–57. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 247–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 1067–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.2067. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging disipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kingstone, A., & Pratt, J. (1999). Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(6), 1046–1054. CrossRef
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(4), 138–147. CrossRef
Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30(8), 1297–1303. CrossRef
Krieghoff, V., Waszak, F., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2011). Neural and behavioral correlates of intentional actions. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 767–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.025. CrossRef
Kühn, S., & Brass, M. (2010). The cognitive representation of intending not to act: Evidence for specific non-action-effect binding. Cognition, 117, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.006. CrossRef
Kühn, S., Keizer, A. W., Rombouts, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2011). The functional and neural mechanism of action preparation: roles of EBA and FFA in voluntary action control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(1), 214–220. CrossRef
Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387.
Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 87–106. CrossRef
Le Bars, S., Hsu, Y.-F., & Waszak, F. (2016). The impact of subliminal effect images in voluntary vs. stimulus-driven actions. Cognition, 156, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.005. CrossRef
Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: in search of partial output, 8(2), pp. 273–296.
Obhi, S. S., & Haggard, P. (2004). Internally generated and externally triggered actions are physically distinct and independently controlled., 518–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-1911-4.
Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2006). Action-Effect Codes in and Before the Central Bottleneck: Evidence From the Psychological Refractory Period Paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627–644. CrossRef
Pfister, R., Heinemann, A., Kiesel, A., Thomaschke, R., & Janczyk, M. (2012). Do endogenous and exogenous action control compete for perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026658.
Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135(3), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.006. CrossRef
Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 10(4), 541–553. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6235318.
Shin, Y. K., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Testing the boundary conditions of the ideomotor hypothesis using a delayed response task. Acta Psychologica, 141, 360–372. CrossRef
Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological research, 68(2–3), 176–188. CrossRef
Wirth, R., Pfister, R., Brandes, J., & Kunde, W. (2016). Stroking me softly: Body-related effects in effect-based action control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1755–1770. CrossRef
Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2011). On the timescale of stimulus-based action-effect learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 64(February 2015), 1273–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.546417. CrossRef
Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2011). The temporal dynamics of effect anticipation in course of action planning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1305–1326. CrossRef
- Response preparation, response selection difficulty, and response-outcome learning
Davood G. Gozli
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg