Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations

Abstract

According to ideomotor theory, voluntary actions are selected and initiated by means of anticipated action effects. Prior experiments yielded evidence for these effect anticipations with response-effect (R-E) compatibility phenomena using blocked R-E relations. Daily actions, however, typically evoke different effects depending on the situational context. In the present study, we accounted for this natural variability and investigated R-E compatibility effects by a trial-by-trial variation of R-E compatibility relations. In line with recent observations regarding ideomotor learning, R-E compatibility influenced responding only when participants responded in free choice trials assuming that participants then adopted an intention-based action control mode. In contrast, R-E compatibility had no impact when participants responded according to imperative stimuli throughout the experiment, thus when participants adopted a stimulus-based action control mode. Interestingly, once an intention-based mode was established because of free choice trials within an experimental block, we observed response compatibility effects in free as well as forced choice trials. These findings extend and refine theoretical assumptions on different action control modes in goal-directed behavior and the specific contribution of ideomotor processes to intention-based action control.

Stroking me softly: Body-related effects in effect-based action control

“…This association becomes evident when, later on, experiencing these effects induces the action (Elsner & Hommel, 2001;Hoffmann, Lenhard, Sebald, & Pfister, 2009;Wolfensteller & Ruge, 2011). Moreover, the anticipation of acquired action effects can be studied, given appropriate settings: When actions predictably produce a visual or auditory effect that mismatches this action on a shared dimension (e.g., a spatial left-right dimension), action production is delayed relative to conditions in which the action and effect match (Ansorge, 2002;Janczyk, Pfister, Crognale, & Kunde,2012;Pfister, Kiesel, & Melcher, 2010;Pfister & Kunde, 2013;Rieger, 2007). The commonly held explanation of this response-effect (R-E) compatibility effect is that the codes of the experimentally manipulated auditory or visual effects interfere with the codes of the body-related effects, which become activated at some point in action generation (Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001).…”

Effective Rotations: Action Effects Determine the Interplay of Mental and Manual Rotations

“…Both factors have been highlighted in previous work (Ansorge, 2002;Hommel, 1993;Kornblum et al, 1990;Pfister et al, 2010).…”

“…However, in the first experiment only the color of the plane's hull determined the required manual response; thus, the display type and the resulting percept were task-irrelevant and conceivably could have been ignored by the participants. Task relevance, however, has been identified as a major contributor to the impact of action effects (Ansorge, 2002;Hommel, 1993;Pfister et al, 2010).…”

“…With the horizon-moving display, by contrast, control wheel and horizon always move in incompatible directions (e.g., a counterclockwise rotation of the control wheel makes the horizon rotate clockwise). Melcher, 2010). In general, the term compatibility refers not only to an overlap of spatial features but to an overlap on any dimension of action features and features of action-contingent effects (Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990).…”

“…Note, however, that in Experiment 1 display type was neither particularly salient nor task-relevant, so neither a main effect of display type nor any modulation in size or direction of the predicted MMRC effect was expected (cf. Ansorge, 2002;Hommel, 1993;Pfister et al, 2010).…”