Similar proactive effect monitoring in free and forced choice action modes

Abstract

When our actions yield predictable consequences in the environment, our eyes often already saccade towards the locations we expect these consequences to appear at. Such spontaneous anticipatory saccades occur based on bi-directional associations between action and effect formed by prior experience. That is, our eye movements are guided by expectations derived from prior learning history. Anticipatory saccades presumably reflect a proactive effect monitoring process that prepares a later comparison of expected and actual effect. Here, we examined whether anticipatory saccades emerged under forced choice conditions when only actions but not target stimuli were predictive of future effects and whether action mode (forced choice vs. free choice, i.e., stimulus-based vs. stimulus-independent choice) affected proactive effect monitoring. Participants produced predictable visual effects on the left/right side via forced choice and free choice left/right key presses. Action and visual effect were spatially compatible in one half of the experiment and spatially incompatible in the other half. Irrespective of whether effects were predicted by target stimuli in addition to participants' actions, in both action modes, we observed anticipatory saccades towards the location of future effects. Importantly, neither the frequency, nor latency or amplitude of these anticipatory saccades significantly differed between forced choice and free choice action modes. Overall, our findings suggest that proactive effect monitoring of future action consequences, as reflected in anticipatory saccades, is comparable between forced choice and free choice action modes.

Anticipatory Saccades Towards the Future Consequences of One’s Actions – an Online Eye Tracking Study

“…SEC scores were just above chance level in the response-effect compatible condition (i.e., participants looked towards future effects above chance), but did not differ from chance in the response-effect incompatible condition. This pattern is in stark contrast to the results of prior in-laboratory studies (e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2016 , 2022 ). Although SEC effects were previously observed to be smaller in the response-effect incompatible than the response-effect compatible condition (e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2022 ), SEC effects in prior in-laboratory studies were, on average, substantially above chance (>70%).…”

“…We used participants’ webcams to assess their eye movements between target offset and effect onset. In Experiment 1, like in prior studies (e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2016 , 2022 ), effects were irrelevant. In Experiment 2, extending prior in-laboratory studies, we rendered effects relevant to investigate the impact of effect relevance on anticipatory saccades in the online eye tracking setting.…”

“…Importantly, anticipating our actions’ effects does not only allow us to select appropriate actions that will produce these effects. It also starts a process of proactive effect monitoring in preparation for later comparing expected and actual effect as evident in anticipatory saccades (e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2016 , 2022 ). When the location of visual effects is predictable due to prior learning experiences, in a blank screen interval between a manual response target offset and effect onset, participants look more often towards the future effect’s location than in the opposite direction (saccade-effect congruency, SEC, effect; e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2016 ; 2022 ).…”

“…It also starts a process of proactive effect monitoring in preparation for later comparing expected and actual effect as evident in anticipatory saccades (e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2016 , 2022 ). When the location of visual effects is predictable due to prior learning experiences, in a blank screen interval between a manual response target offset and effect onset, participants look more often towards the future effect’s location than in the opposite direction (saccade-effect congruency, SEC, effect; e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ; Pfeuffer et al, 2016 ; 2022 ). This was the case both when action-effect contingencies persisted for a large number of trials (1 st vs. 2 nd half of the experiment; e.g., Pfeuffer et al, 2016 , 2022 ) and when action-effect contingencies only persisted for sequences of several trials before switching, that is, after few prior action-effect learning instances ( Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021 ).…”

Current foveal inspection and previous peripheral preview influence subsequent eye movement decisions

“…Such a priming-based mechanism would be related to the ideomotor principle (James, 1890; for review see Shin et al, 2010) and explain why the drift rate findings are exclusive for faces. According to this principle, actions are represented by their anticipated effects, and these action effects have been shown to contribute to oculomotor control (e.g., Huestegge and Kreutzfeldt, 2012;Pfeuffer et al, 2016). If that were the case, then our findings might only be true in situations in which foveal and peripheral targets belong to the same category or at least share perceptual features.…”