Limits of ideomotor action–outcome acquisition

Watson, Poppy; Steenbergen, Henk van; Wit, Sanne de; Wiers, Reinout W.; Hommel, Bernhard

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.020

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have shown that actors performing spatial responses tend to code their actions in terms of salient visual Yamaguchi & Proctor, 2011) or Action Goal Sharing 8 auditory (Elsner & Hommel, 2001) events that these actions generate, such as responsecontingent signals on a screen or auditory events, at least if the action effects are sufficiently salient (Dutzi & Hommel, 2009) and the task is not too complex (Watson, van Steenbergen, de Wit, Wiers & Hommel, 2015). In the present study, we used visual action effects that were triggered by pressing the response keys (see Figure 1).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central issue in the study of joint task performance has been one of whether co-acting individuals perform their partner's part of the task as if it were their own. The present study addressed this issue by using joint task switching. A pair of actors shared two tasks that were presented in a random order, whereby the relevant task and actor were cued on each trial. Responses produced action effects that were either shared or separate between co-actors. When co-actors produced separate action effects, switch costs were obtained within the same actor (i.e., when the same actor performed consecutive trials) but not between co-actors (when different actors performed consecutive trials), implying that actors did not perform their co-actor's part. When the same action effects were shared between co-actors, however, switch costs were also obtained between co-actors, implying that actors did perform their co-actor's part. The results indicated that shared action effects induce task-set sharing between co-acting individuals.

show abstract

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The more a task stresses the induced actioneffect associations and the more they contribute to a good performance in the task, the more likely participants are going to use these associations. In this sense, in addition to the design of the acquisition phase (Herwig et al 2007), the complexity of the task (Watson et al 2015) and other factors, the task relevance of effect tones and the presentation of postresponse effects are two more factors to affect whether the induced action-effect associations are used for action control.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideomotor learning and effect-based action control are two well-studied factors in human action control (Hommel et al 2016). In principle, they are suitable for psychological studies for they are believed to take place incidentally, implicitly and automatically (Watson et al 2015). However, beyond the experimentally induced action-effects, experimentindependent action-effects, for instance body-related actioneffects, are still sufficient for ideomotor action control (Pfister 2019).…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effect stimuli can be employed as imperative stimuli or as an addition to a distinct main task; ideomotor learning and the expression of action-effect associations can proceed in either case. Beyond that, Watson et al (2015) recommend using a small set of action-effect associations. Herbort and Butz (2012) support this claim and adds that effects should follow the action within a short time window and the demanded actions have to be rather simple.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideomotor theory assumes that the acquisition and expression of action-effect associations occur rather incidentally and automatically, even if the usage of actioneffect associations is not necessary for the task (Hommel 1996(Hommel , 2005Watson et al 2015). Phenomena relating to action planning and selection according to their corresponding sensory effects have even been measured in primates (Kuang et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of the verbal instruction and task characteristics on effect-based action control

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to ideomotor theory, when people perform a movement and observe its subsequent effect, they acquire a bidirectional action-effect association. If at a later point they want to produce the effect, its anticipation activates and allows executing the corresponding action. In ideomotor induction tasks, several task characteristics determine whether participants use the experimentally induced action-effect associations to pre-activate the corresponding actions. Here, we assess the impact of the verbal instruction, the task relevance of the effect stimuli and the presentation of post-response effects on the expression of action-effect associations. The results show that an instruction stressing the stimulus-effect correspondence prompts participants to utilize the presented effects more than an instruction stressing the stimulus-response correspondence. Furthermore, the induced action-effect associations were only expressed when the effects were relevant for the task and when post-response effects were presented in the test phase. These findings show the importance of the particular task construction for the expression of the experimentally manipulated action-effect knowledge.

show abstract

Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of these effects will automatically activate the associated motor pattern. R-E learning is typically investigated with (induction) experiments that comprise an acquisition phase, where R-E associations are presumably learned, and a subsequent test phase, where the previous effects serve as stimuli for a response. While most studies used stimuli in the test phase that were identical to the effects in the acquisition phase, one study reported generalization from exemplars to their superordinate category (Hommel et al., Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003, Exp. 1). However, studies on so-called R-E compatibility did not report such generalization. We aimed to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 of Hommel et al. (Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003) with a free-choice test phase. While we did observe effects consistent with R-E learning when the effects in the acquisition phase were identical to the stimuli in the test phase, we did not observe evidence for generalization. We discuss this with regard to recent studies suggesting that individual response biases might rather reflect rapidly inferred propositional knowledge instead of learned R-E associations.

show abstract

Limits of ideomotor action–outcome acquisition

Cited by 14 publications

References 42 publications

Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching

Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching

The impact of the verbal instruction and task characteristics on effect-based action control

Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About