Automatic motor activation by mere instruction

Abstract

Previous behavioral studies have shown that instructions about stimulus-response (S-R) mappings can influence task performance even when these instructions are irrelevant for the current task. In the present study, we tested whether automatic effects of S-R instructions occur because the instructed stimuli automatically activate their corresponding responses. We registered the lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) that were evoked by the instructed stimuli while participants were performing a task for which those mappings were irrelevant. Instructed S-R mappings clearly affected task performance in electrophysiological and behavioral measures. The LRP was found to deflect in the direction of the response tendency that corresponded with the instructed S-R mapping. Early activation of the instructed response was observed but occurred predominantly on slow trials. In contrast, response conflict evoked by instructed S-R mappings did not modulate the N2 amplitude. The results strongly suggest that, like experienced S-R mappings, instructed S-R mappings can lead to automatic response activation, but possibly via a different route

Congruency effects on the basis of instructed response-effect contingencies

“…In contrast to Experiment 1, the error rates did not indicate the presence of an instruction-based congruency effect. It should be noted, however, that previous research using a similar procedure did also not consistently observe instruction-based congruency effects in the error rates (see Everaert et al, 2014;Liefooghe et al, 2012Liefooghe et al, , 2013. The reason for this is most probably that error rates in the diagnostic task are generally very low and lacking in variance.…”

There are limits to the effects of task instructions: Making the automatic effects of task instructions context-specific takes practice.

“…Mere S-R instructions were also shown to influence automatic motor activation during stimulus presentation as indexed via electroencephalography and electromyography (Bardi, Bundt, Notebaert, & Brass, 2015;Everaert, Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014;Meiran, Pereg, Kessler, Cole, & Braver, 2015b). These findings suggest that instructions can establish S-R associations that are activated in an almost reflexive manner upon stimulus presentation (Meiran et al, 2015b).…”

Encoding of Novel Verbal Instructions for Prospective Action in the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex: Evidence from Univariate and Multivariate Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis

“…Within the study of human cognitive and motor control, appreciable progress has been made in describing the connection between symbolic information integration and complex action learning, opening new lines of research on how verbal instructions influence the neural and cognitive correlates of human behavior (Meiran, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2017;Demanet et al, 2016;Meiran, Pereg, Kessler, Cole, & Braver, 2015;Everaert, Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014;Liefooghe, De Houwer, & Wenke, 2013;Liefooghe, Wenke, & De Houwer, 2012;Ruge & Wolfensteller, 2010). In this respect, this study aims to expand upon recent findings on the role of the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) in implementing and memorizing verbal instructions at different levels of information processing and training.…”

“…Substantial evidence indicates that successfully implementing instructed mappings between stimuli and motor responses requires processes beyond mere knowledge of these mappings, notably the ability to translate them into motor programs for effective behavior (Brass, Liefooghe, Braem, & De Houwer, 2017;Everaert et al, 2014;Liefooghe et al, 2012Liefooghe et al, , 2013. This "knowing" versus "doing" divide speaks to the functional segregation between the declarative versus procedural components of working memory, supporting the temporary storage of information for knowledge retrieval and action completion, respectively (Oberauer, 2009;Anderson, 1983).…”