The microgenesis of action-effect binding

Abstract

Ideomotor theories of human action control assume that performing a movement leads to the automatic integration of the underlying motor pattern with codes of its perceptual consequences. We studied the microgenesis of action-eVect integration by varying the mapping of action eVects upon actions from trial to trial. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that perceiving a tone repetition systematically aVects one's tendency to carry out the response that produced that tone in the previous trial, suggesting that even the unintentional production of a stimulus creates a temporary binding of that stimulus with the action that brought it about. Experiments 3 and 4 extended this Wnding in suggesting that the integration and/or retrieval of action eVects is modulated by attentional factors: Ongoing performance is more impacted by action eVects if they are salient or match the current attentional set.

Congruency effects on the basis of instructed response-effect contingencies

“…Hommel (2009) proposed that a stimulus and a response are integrated into a functional association independently of the order in which the stimuli and responses are experienced (i.e., a stimulus before a response as in S-R contingencies or a stimulus after a response as in R-E contingencies). Within this view, congruency effects based on R-E contingencies are similar to congruency effects based on S-R contingencies (see also, Dutzi & Hommel, 2009;Elsner & Hommel, 2001;Hommel, 2005).…”

Goal-directed and transfer-cue-elicited drug-seeking are dissociated by pharmacotherapy: Evidence for independent additive controllers.

“…In addition, concurrent training endowed participants with instrumental knowledge of the response-points contingencies, which were bidirectional such that retrieval of a representation of the points could elicit the associated response; a process known as ideomotor or O-R control (Dutzi & Hommel, 2009). …”

A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?

“…This learning process obviously also begins with the very first episode of a particular response causing a particular effect (Dutzi & Hommel, 2009). Studies on this microgenesis of response-effect associations focus on aftereffects of individual responses and typically use a simple experimental procedure:…”

“…While many studies investigating the usage of environmental contingencies in action control focused on long-term effects of learning processes, the first step in a learning process-that is, the very first encounter of a particular contingency-could be considered the smallest learning unit which might become reinforced by recurrence. In this regard the investigation of short-term associations between stimuli, responses, and following effects provides insight into the mechanisms that ensure behavioral efficiency in a variety of tasks (Dutzi & Hommel, 2009;Giesen & Rothermund, 2011;Hommel, Proctor, & Vu, 2004;Mayr & Buchner, 2006;Moeller & Frings, 2011;Tipper, 1985).…”

“…In the following, we will describe two of these traditions in more detail, both of which focus on short-term associations that are acquired incidentally. One of these traditions focuses on the formation of action plans and the influence, recently used action plans can have on current behavior (Frings, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2007;Frings & Moeller, 2010;Hommel, 1998;Mayr & Buchner, 2006), whereas the other tradition focuses on the role of action-contingent changes in the environment and how these action effects are used for action control (Elsner & Hommel, 2001;Dutzi & Hommel, 2009;Kunde, 2001;Pfister, Kiesel, & Melcher, 2010).…”