Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for empirical approaches to ideomotor action control.

Pfister, Roland

doi:10.1037/rev0000140

Cited by 88 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 98 publications

(142 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, for the sake of brevity, we refer to features of bodyrelated or environment-related effects as body-related and environment-related features. Pfister (2019) argued that in many experimental tasks representing actions by body-related features (e.g., which finger to use to press a certain key) should be sufficient to achieve the task goal. Contrarily, using feature codes relating to environmental action effects might only be favorable if representing the action with feature codes of its body-related effects alone is in some way disadvantageous.…”

Section: Feature Codes In Action Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning

Mocke,

Weller,

Frings

et al. 2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action planning can be construed as the temporary binding of features of perceptual action effects. While previous research demonstrated binding for task-relevant, body-related effect features, the role of task-irrelevant or environment-related effect features in action planning is less clear. Here, we studied whether task-relevance or body-relatedness determines feature binding in action planning. Participants planned an action A, but before executing it initiated an intermediate action B. Each action relied on a body-related effect feature (index vs. middle finger movement) and an environment-related effect feature (cursor movement towards vs. away from a reference object). In Experiments 1 and 2, both effects were task-relevant. Performance in action B suffered from partial feature overlap with action A compared to full feature repetition or alternation, which is in line with binding of both features while planning action A. Importantly, this cost disappeared when all features were available but only body-related features were task-relevant (Experiment 3). When only the environment-related effect of action A was known in advance, action B benefitted when it aimed at the same (vs. a different) environment-related effect (Experiment 4). Consequently, the present results support the idea that task relevance determines whether binding of body-related and environment-related effect features takes place while the pre-activation of environment-related features without binding them primes feature-overlapping actions.

show abstract

Section: Feature Codes In Action Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning

Mocke,

Weller,

Frings

et al. 2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the following, we will discuss both possibilities, starting with the latter proposal. 4 When assuming that the present experimental design is unsuited to study action-effect learning, the consistent lack of between-condition differences begs the question of whether action-effect learning between key-press actions and following social effects did not take place at all, or whether learning did occur but failed to show in the test phase (Pfister, 2019;Pfister, Kiesel, & Hoffmann, 2011). Critically examining the experimental design seems to locate the issue in the test phase of the original design by Sato and Itakura (2013), especially because of how congruency between target and effectassociated actions was manipulated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

Riechelmann

Weller

Huestegge

et al. 2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect-based accounts of human action control have recently highlighted the possibility of representing one's own actions in terms of anticipated changes in the behavior of social interaction partners. In contrast to action effects that pertain to the agent's body or the agent's physical environment, social action effects have been proposed to come with peculiarities inherent to their social nature. Here, we revisit the currently most prominent demonstration of such a peculiarity: the role of eye contact for actioneffect learning in social contexts (Sato & Itakura, 2013, Cognition, 127, 383-390). In contrast to the previous demonstration of action-effect learning, a conceptual and a direct replication both yielded evidence for the absence of action-effect learning in the proposed design, irrespective of eye contact. Bayesian statistics supported this claim by demonstrating evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no effect. These results suggest a limited generalizability of the original findings-for example, due to limitations that are inherent in the proposed study design or due to cultural differences.

show abstract

“…Herwig et al (2007) claim that the task setup affects whether the system that is guiding stimulus-based actions is accompanied by stimulus-response (sensorimotor) or action-effect (ideomotor) learning. Pfister (2019), however, points out that it is less a question of whether or not ideomotor learning and the expression of action-effect associations take place at all, but rather which action-effects are used for action control. He offers a possible explanation for the inconsistently appearing ideomotor congruency effect in different studies by arguing that participants choose between different action-effects a task offers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of the verbal instruction and task characteristics on effect-based action control

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to ideomotor theory, when people perform a movement and observe its subsequent effect, they acquire a bidirectional action-effect association. If at a later point they want to produce the effect, its anticipation activates and allows executing the corresponding action. In ideomotor induction tasks, several task characteristics determine whether participants use the experimentally induced action-effect associations to pre-activate the corresponding actions. Here, we assess the impact of the verbal instruction, the task relevance of the effect stimuli and the presentation of post-response effects on the expression of action-effect associations. The results show that an instruction stressing the stimulus-effect correspondence prompts participants to utilize the presented effects more than an instruction stressing the stimulus-response correspondence. Furthermore, the induced action-effect associations were only expressed when the effects were relevant for the task and when post-response effects were presented in the test phase. These findings show the importance of the particular task construction for the expression of the experimentally manipulated action-effect knowledge.

show abstract

Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for empirical approaches to ideomotor action control.

Cited by 88 publications

References 98 publications

Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning

Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

The impact of the verbal instruction and task characteristics on effect-based action control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About