An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus, but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Atten Percept Psychophys

Gallimore

2013

In this article, we ask what serves as the "glue" that temporarily links information to form an event in an active observer. We examined whether forming a single action event in an active observer is contingent on the temporal presentation of the stimuli (hence, on the temporal availability of the action information associated with these stimuli), or on the learned temporal execution of the actions associated with the stimuli, or on both. A partial-repetition paradigm was used to assess the boundaries of an event for which the temporal properties of the stimuli (i.e., presented either simultaneously or temporally separate) and the intended execution of the actions associated with these stimuli (i.e., executed as one, temporally integrated, response or as two temporally separate responses) were manipulated. The results showed that the temporal features of action execution determined whether one or more events were constructed; the temporal presentation of the stimuli (and hence the availability of their associated actions) did not. This suggests that the action representation, or "task goal," served as the "glue" in forming an event in an active observer. These findings emphasize the importance of action planning in event construction in an active observer.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Design and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

What makes an event: Temporal integration of stimuli or actions?

Atten Percept Psychophys

Gallimore

2013

“…For example, if an action sequence is planned that requires the right-hand, a "right" code will be occupied, delaying any additional actions that require the "right" code (e.g., the right-hand) until the planned action is performed or released which was the result obtained by Stoet and Hommel (1999; see also Mattson & Fournier, 2008;Wiediger & Fournier, 2008). In accordance with the COH, Stoet and Hommel found that CI occurred only if a sequence of actions was planned in advance of the stimulus that required an immediate action.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response

Wiediger

McMeans

et al. 2009

Psychological Research

Holding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) feature. This compatibility interference (CI) occurs for actions that share the same response modality (e.g., manual response). We investigated whether CI can generalize to actions that utilize different response modalities (manual and vocal). In three experiments, participants planned and withheld a sequence of key-presses with the left- or right-hand based on the visual identity of the first stimulus, and then immediately executed a speeded, vocal response ('left' or 'right') to a second visual stimulus. The vocal response was based on discriminating stimulus color (Experiment 1), reading a written word (Experiment 2), or reporting the antonym of a written word (Experiment 3). Results showed that CI occurred when the manual response hand (e.g., left) was compatible with the identity of the vocal response (e.g., 'left') in Experiment 1 and 3, but not in Experiment 2. This suggests that partial overlap of semantic codes is sufficient to obtain CI unless the intervening action can be accessed automatically (Experiment 2). These findings are consistent with the code occupation hypothesis and the general framework of the theory of event coding (Behav Brain Sci 24:849-878, 2001a; Behav Brain Sci 24:910-937, 2001b).

“…For example, executing a left-hand keypress conditional on stimulus identity (a red target) is delayed if it shares a feature code (Bleft^) with an action plan maintained in WM (Bleft hand move up^), as compared to when it does not (Bright hand move up^; Mattson & Fournier, 2008;Stoet & Hommel, 1999). This delay is referred to as a partial repetition cost.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The action features are assumed to be integrated in the action plan, so reactivating (priming) one feature activates the other features with which it is integrated. This leads to temporary confusion (code confusion) as to which action plan is relevant for the current task: the current plan or the plan maintained in WM (Fournier & Gallimore, 2013;Fournier, Gallimore, Feiszli, & Logan, 2014b;Hommel, 2004Hommel, , 2005Mattson & Fournier, 2008;Mattson, Fournier, & Behmer, 2012). As a result, the irrelevant feature code or action plan must be inhibited, and the time required to inhibit it delays selection of the action plan for the current task (see also Sevald & Dell, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Action plans can interact to hinder or facilitate reach performance

Atten Percept Psychophys

Wiediger

Taddese

2015

Executing a reach action can be delayed while retaining another action in working memory (WM) if the two action plans partly overlap rather than do not overlap. This delay (partial repetition cost) occurs when reach responses are under cognitive control. In this study, we investigated whether facilitation (a partial repetition benefit) occurs when reach responses are automatic. We also examined whether the hemisphere controlling the limb or selection of the preferred limb (based on a free-reach task) influences reach performance when the actions partly overlap. Leftand right-handers reached to different stimulus locations to the left and right of body midline with their ipsilateral hand while maintaining an action plan in WM that required the same or the different hand. The results showed a partial repetition benefit for spatially compatible reaches to left and right stimulus locations far from the body midline, but not for those near the body midline. Also, no partial repetition cost was found at any of the stimulus-reach locations. This indicates that automatic reach responses that partly overlap with an action plan maintained in WM are not delayed, but instead can be facilitated (partial repetition benefit). The roles of hemisphere and reach-hand preference in action control and the importance of the degree of feature overlap in obtaining a partial repetition benefit (and cost) are discussed.