Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2004 | Original Article

The ideomotor principle and motor sequence acquisition: Tone effects facilitate movement chunking

Auteurs: Christian Stöcker, Joachim Hoffmann

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2-3/2004

Abstract

Participants practiced short sequences of key presses; sequence length and response-effect mapping were the independent variables. Contingent, distinct key-effect relations were contrasted with either contingent but uniform or no response effects. In Experiment 1, tone effects were relevant as response-specific stimuli and also as effects. The sequence length effect for the tones group was reduced. In Experiment 2, participants were informed about the sequences to be executed and then given varying amounts of preparation time before the start signal. A reduction in the sequence length effect was observed, and initiation times and mean interresponse time (IRTs) were generally reduced in the tone group. Preparation time could compensate for some but not all of the latency reducing influence of the tone effects. The results are discussed with reference to ideomotor approaches to motor control, i.e., the notion that actions are represented in sensory format.

vorige artikel The role of action effects in infants’ action control

volgende artikel Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning

Bangert, M., Parlitz, D., & Altenmüller, E. O. (1998). Audio-motor integration in beginner and expert pianists: A combined DC-EEG and behavioural study. In N. Elsner & P. Wehner (Eds.), The Göttingen neurobiology report II (pp. 753ff). Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme.

Darwin, C. J., Turvey, M. T., & Crowder, R. G. (1972). An auditory analogue of the Sperling partial report procedure: Evidence for brief auditory storage. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 255–267.

Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.

Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.PubMed

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 and performance volume XIX (pp. 673–689). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henry, F. M, & Rogers, D. E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, & Recreation, 31, 448–458.

Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stöcker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in Serial Reaction Time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 470–482.

Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.

Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1015–1027.CrossRef

Klapp, S. T. (1996). Reaction time analysis of central motor control. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 13–35). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 387–394.

Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67, 153–159.PubMed

Rosenbaum, D. A., Inhoff, A. W., & Gordon, A. M. (1984). Choosing between movement sequences: A hierarchical editor model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 372–393.

Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L. & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). New York: Academic Press.

Stöcker, C., Hoffmann, J., & Sebald, A. (2003). The influence of response-effect compatibility in a serial reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 685–703.

Verwey, W. B. (1999). Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1693–1708.

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.

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.

Titel: The ideomotor principle and motor sequence acquisition: Tone effects facilitate movement chunking
Auteurs: Christian Stöcker
Joachim Hoffmann
Publicatiedatum: 01-04-2004
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2-3/2004
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0150-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2-3/2004

Response priming by supraliminal and subliminal action effects

Coloring an action: Intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect

Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects

Action induction through action observation

The role of action effects in infants’ action control

What’s at the top in the top-down control of action? Script-sharing and ‘top-top’ control of action in cognitive experiments