The role of anticipation and intention in the learning of effects of self-performed actions

Abstract

The anticipative learning model for acquiring action-effect relations states that the acquisition of action-effect relations depends on processes that are part of action planning, in particular the anticipation of possible effects. Experiment 1 shows that response planning is indeed crucial for the learning of response effects. In this experiment distractors (tones) were presented either during response preparation or in the time interval between response execution and the presentation of a response effect. Response-effect learning was impaired when the distractors were presented during response preparation. The finding is consistent with the assumption that the distractors impaired the anticipation of potential effects and therefore reduced effect learning. In Experiment 2 all responses had two effects. Participants were instructed to produce one of the effects. Under this condition, response-effect learning was only found for the instructed effect, not for the non-instructed effect. The two experiments thus support the view that response-effect learning is selective and depends on the anticipation of potential effects during response planning. The results are discussed in terms of a model that explains both the learning of response-effect relations and the use of these effects for action control within the same theoretical framework.

Busy doing nothing: Evidence for nonaction-effect binding

“…This is why we assume that the binding occurs between the intention to respond or not to respond and the effect tone. This is in line with the anticipative learning model (Ziessler et al, 2004), suggesting that responses are not connected to the actual effects but rather to the anticipated effects that constitute the motor intention. Our third experiment clearly demonstrates that an active mental process-namely, an intention, or, put differently, the anticipated effect-is necessary to produce nonaction-effect binding, because the omission of an action alone (instructed "no go") is not sufficient to produce nonaction-effect binding.…”

“…In contrast to associative models, the anticipative learning model (Ziessler, Nattkemper, & Frensch, 2004) assumes that the binding between the response and the stimulus is mediated by the anticipated effects on the basis of assumptions of forward and inverse models (Wolpert, Miall, & Kawato, 1998). Since responses are connected to anticipated effects rather than to the actual effects, actioneffect binding can emerge only if anticipation takes place during action planning.…”

Voluntary stimulus production enhances deviance processing in the brain

“…The frequent experience of a perceptual event after a certain action strengthens the bidirectional link between action and effect through associative learning mechanisms Hommel, 2001, 2004). Although it is controversial whether this learning process takes place automatically or selectively (Ziessler et al, 2004), it is plausible that action (or action planning) activates the perceptual representation of a forthcoming event that depends largely on frequent stimuli. This anticipatory activation would make a deviant stimulus more salient in the context and elicit a larger orienting response (reflected in a larger P3a) and subsequent updating of the representation (reflected in a larger P3b).…”

The microgenesis of action-effect binding

“…Even though the bulk of the evidence suggests that action-eVect learning occurs spontaneously and without any intention to learn, Ziessler, Nattkemper, and Frensch (2004) have argued that eVective action-eVect acquisition depends on the active anticipation of the eVects and is thus under attentional control. In their study, participants carried out pairs of manual responses signaled by visual letters (S 1 !…”