No anticipation without intention: Response–effect compatibility in effect-based and stimulus-based actions

Zwosta, Katharina; Ruge, Hannes; Wolfensteller, Uta

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.09.014

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following recent studies that employed trial-wise manipulations of R-E compatibility (Ansorge, 2002;Gaschler & Nattkemper, 2012;Pfister, Janczyk, Gressmann, Fournier, & Kunde, 2014;Pfister et al, 2010;Zwosta et al, 2013), we ruled out methodological issues that could arise with block-wise manipulations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are by now a few single-task studies that manipulated R-E compatibility on a trial-by-trial basis (Ansorge, 2002;Gaschler & Nattkemper, 2012;Pfister, Janczyk, Wirth, Dignath, & Kunde, 2014;Pfister, Kiesel, & Melcher, 2010;Pfister, Melcher, Kiesel, Dechent, & Gruber, 2014;Zwosta, Ruge, & Wolfensteller, 2013), however, such manipulations have not yet been used in a PRP framework. Consequently, in our Experiments 1 and 2 we combined a trial-wise manipulation of R-E compatibility with a PRP setup.…”

Section: Investigating Ideomotor Effect Anticipationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Investigating Ideomotor Effect Anticipationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…R-E compatibility was manipulated trial to trial with target-inherent cueing (cf. Gaschler & Nattkemper, 2012;Pfister, Janczyk, Wirth, et al, 2014;Pfister et al, 2010;Zwosta, Ruge, & Wolfensteller, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wirth

Pfister

Brandes

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical investigations of ideomotor effect anticipations have mainly focused on action effects in the environment. By contrast, action effects that apply to the agent's body have rarely been put to the test in corresponding experimental paradigms. We present a series of experiments using the response-effect compatibility paradigm, in which we studied the impacts of to-be-produced tactile action effects on action selection, initiation, and execution. The results showed a robust and reliable impact if these tactile action effects were rendered task-relevant (Exp. 1), but not when they were task-irrelevant (Exps. 2a and 2b). We further showed that anticipations of tactile action effects follow the same time course as anticipations of environment-related effects (Exps. 3 and 4). These findings demonstrate that body-related action effects affect action control much as environment-related effects do, and therefore support the theoretical assumption of the functional equivalence of all types of action effects.

show abstract

“…The expression of this learning (i.e. the activation of responses via outcome representations) may, however, be modified by task demands and instructions to participants (Pfister et al, 2010;Zwosta et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Others have studied the temporal dynamics by varying the time between actions and outcomes either during the acquisition phase, or during test (Desantis et al, 2014;Elsner and Hommel, 2004;Ziessler and Nattkemper, 2011). A number of studies have examined how task instructions and intention during acquisition modulate the acquisition and expression of actionoutcome learning (Herwig and Waszak, 2009;Zwosta et al, 2013). Overall these studies show that under simple conditions, the priming effect is robust and associations between actions and outcomes are quickly acquired.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Limits of ideomotor action–outcome acquisition

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideomotor theory proposes that goal-directed action emerges from the implicit, incidental acquisition of bi-directional associations between actions and their outcomes. In line with this idea, a simple two-stage priming paradigm has provided evidence that presentation of outcomes primes previously associated actions. In the current study we compare the standard priming paradigm with two actions and two unique outcomes (Experiment 1) with two more complex, but otherwise identical versions (Experiment 2: two vs. four actions with four outcomes). Our results show stronger evidence of action-outcome learning in the simple compared to the more complex versions. We suggest that, when using the classic two-stage paradigm, action-outcome acquisition is limited to just a few action-outcome associations that can be concurrently learned-at least if learning is not supported by discriminative stimuli and outcomes are not salient or motivationally relevant. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled SI: Prediction and Attention.

show abstract

No anticipation without intention: Response–effect compatibility in effect-based and stimulus-based actions

Cited by 27 publications

References 17 publications

Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck

Through the portal: Effect anticipation in the central bottleneck

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

Limits of ideomotor action–outcome acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About