Exploring Modality Compatibility in the Response-Effect Compatibility Paradigm

Abstract

According to ideomotor theory, action planning is based on anticipatory perceptual representations of action-effects. This aspect of action control has been investigated in studies using the response-effect compatibility (REC) paradigm, in which responses have been shown to be facilitated if ensuing perceptual effects share codes with the response based on dimensional overlap (i.e., REC). Additionally, according to the notion of ideomotor compatibility, certain response-effect (R-E) mappings will be stronger than others because some response features resemble the anticipated sensory response effects more strongly than others (e.g., since vocal responses usually produce auditory effects, an auditory stimulus should be anticipated in a stronger manner following vocal responses rather than following manual responses). Yet, systematic research on this matter is lacking. In the present study, two REC experiments aimed to explore the influence of R-E modality mappings. In Experiment 1, vocal number word responses produced visual effects on the screen (digits vs. number words; i.e., visual-symbolic vs. visual-verbal effect codes). The REC effect was only marginally larger for visual-verbal than for visual-symbolic effects. Using verbal effect codes in Experiment 2, we found that the REC effect was larger with auditory-verbal R-E mapping than with visual-verbal R-E mapping. Overall, the findings support the hypothesis of a role of R-E modality mappings in REC effects, suggesting both further evidence for ideomotor accounts as well as code-specific and modality-specific contributions to effect anticipation.

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

“…According to the common logic of dimensional overlap, stimulus features prime actions with compatible features ( element-level compatibility ; Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990; Proctor & Reeve, 1990). Following ideomotor theory, such priming should also occur for features of anticipated effects, and this is precisely what studies have reported (see also Ansorge, 2002; Badets, Pesenti, & Olivier, 2010; Chen & Proctor, 2013; Földes, Philipp, Badets, & Koch, 2017; Kunde, 2003; Pfister, Janczyk, Wirth, Dignath, & Kunde, 2014; Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2011; Zwosta, Ruge, & Wolfensteller, 2013).…”

A diffusion model analysis of the response-effect compatibility effect.

“…1), verbal overlap (Koch & Kunde, 2002; Paelecke & Kunde, 2007, Exp. 2; for a similar REC effect using verbal responses, see also Badets, Koch, & Toussaint, 2013; Földes, Philipp, Badets, & Koch, 2017), overlap in the duration of key presses and of the effects (Kunde, 2003), and overlap in rotation directions of actions and effects (Janczyk, Yamaguchi, Proctor, & Pfister, 2015). Further, effects applied to the actor’s body appear to behave similar to those occurring in the environment (Pfister, Janczyk, Gressmann, Fournier, & Kunde, 2014; Wirth, Pfister, Brandes, & Kunde, 2016).…”

The role of action effects in motor sequence planning and execution: exploring the influence of temporal and spatial effect anticipation

“…In another study that only showed spatial effects, the difference between the short and long delay was relatively small (short delay = 300 ms, long delay = 400 ms) compared to other temporal manipulations (50 ms vs. 2000 ms or 50 ms vs. 1200 ms) (Pfister et al, 2017 ). Furthermore, previous observations of auditory pitch-based spatial action–effect compatibility point to a possible role of modality-specific processes in effect anticipation (Földes et al, 2017 ). Further research is needed to explain why action effect features may be retrieved independently, and under which circumstances.…”