Temporal response-effect compatibility

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of duration-varying response effects on the generation and execution of duration-varying responses. Participants performed short or long keypresses which produced auditory effects of corresponding duration (short response ->short tone, long response ->long tone) or of noncorresponding duration (short response ->long tone, long response ->short tone). Experiment 1 revealed faster responding with a corresponding than with a noncorresponding Response-Effect (R-E) mapping; that is, a temporal R-E compatibility effect. Additionally, increasing effect duration increased response latencies, whereas it decreased keypress duration. Experiment 2 showed that the influence of temporal R-E compatibility persists even when responses are cued in advance, suggesting that at least part of it originates from response generation processes occurring later than a traditional response selection stage. These findings corroborate and complement effect-based theories of action control which assume that the selection, initiation, and execution of movements is mediated by anticipation of their sensory effects.

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

“…Response execution, however, was barely modulated by R-E compatibility, suggesting that the effect of anticipation processes takes place in the early stages of response planning and initiation (cf. Kunde, 2003;Kunde et al, 2004;Shin & Proctor, 2012). Thus, anticipations of body-related action effects seem to follow a time course similar to that of anticipations of effects in the environment.…”

“…A custom-made apparatus allowed us to manipulate how participants' hand movements of the dominant hand were translated to a brush that stroked the forearm of the non-dominant hand. Such tactile feedback represents a type of body-related action effect that has been neglected by previous studies on effect-based action control (e.g., Ansorge, 2002;Chen & Proctor, 2013;Gaschler & Nattkemper, 2012;Hubbard, Gazzaley, & Morsella, 2011;Kunde, 2001Kunde, , 2003Pfister et al, 2010;Pfister & Kunde, 2013;Wirth et al, 2015;Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2011).…”

“…For environment-related effects, previous results have demonstrated crucial roles of effect anticipation during both response selection and response initiation (Kunde, 2003;Kunde, Koch, & Hoffmann, 2004;Shin & Proctor, 2012). More precisely, these studies assumed that anticipated effects can be activated with different strengths and that an action is executed eventually when this strength exceeds a certain threshold.…”

“…3 and 4). For environment-related effects, previous studies in the R-E compatibility paradigm have suggested prominent roles of effect anticipations during both, action selection and action initiation (Kunde, 2003;Kunde, Koch, & Hoffmann, 2004;Shin & Proctor, 2012). More precisely, these studies implemented a precue that informed about the to-beperformed action, which only had to be initiated after a variable cue-go interval (CGI).…”

Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance

“…Yet, these differences can be altered by changing the duration of the contingent sensory effects following such actions. What seems to influence the initiation of the responses most is the duration of the anticipated feedback of the forthcoming action rather than the duration of the action as such (Kunde, 2003). To give another example, key presses are executed more quickly if the desired responses match a response-affording stimulus in a certain respect (such as the faster responding to stimuli that match the required response in terms of spatial location).…”