Spatio-temporal dynamics of action-effect associations in oculomotor control

Riechelmann, Eva; Pieczykolan, Aleks; Horstmann, Gernot; Herwig, Arvid; Huestegge, Lynn

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.09.003

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it seems that only a few learning instances might be sufficient to establish action-effect associations strong enough to trigger proactive effect-monitoring processes and corresponding anticipatory saccades. This matches findings by Riechelmann et al (2017). In their study, goal-directed left/right eye movements led to the upper/ lower light of a traffic light stimulus turning on.…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

“…Interestingly, action-effect anticipation has also been studied in eye movements. However, in the majority of studies on action-effect anticipation in eye movements, saccadic responses were instructed and used as a substitute for manual responses to assess ideomotor influences on action selection (e.g., Herwig & Horstmann, 2011; Huestegge & Kreutzfeldt, 2012; Riechelmann et al, 2017). In opposition to this trend, Pfeuffer et al (2016) suggested that spontaneously occurring, uninstructed eye movements could carry additional information about action-effect anticipation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Learning to expect and monitor the future: How fast do anticipatory saccades toward future action consequences emerge?

Gouret¹,

Pfeuffer²

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an action contingently yields the same effect, we form bidirectional action-effect associations that allow us to anticipate the effects of our actions. Importantly, our eyes already move toward the expected future location of our actions' effects in anticipation of them, that is, we perform anticipatory saccades. These anticipatory saccades are linked to a proactive effect-monitoring process that prepares the comparison of expected and actual effect. However, how fast such anticipatory saccades emerge (i.e., how fast learning leads to monitoring) is unknown. To address this question, correct left/right responses were followed by a visual effect either on the same side (response-effect compatible) or on the opposite side (response-effect incompatible). In Experiment 1, action-effect compatibility switched after sequences of four, eight, or 12 trials (randomly allocated; partly predictable environment). In Experiment 2, random trials (two to seven) separated sequences of three, five, or seven experimental trials. Again, action-effect compatibility switched after a sequence of trials and sequences were randomly allocated (unpredictable environment). In both experiments, participants started to perform anticipatory saccades toward future effects after experiencing a new action-effect mapping once/twice (response-effect compatible/incompatible). That is, a single to two action-effect (re-)learning instances were sufficient to develop actioneffect associations that trigger attentional shifts toward the expected future consequences of our actions (i.e., monitoring processes), whereas influences on action selection are only observed after a substantially larger number of (re-)learning instances. These results suggest that monitoring processes modulate the expression of action-effect associations in action planning based on observed action-effect contingencies. Public Significance StatementWhen an action predictably yields a certain consequence, we anticipate the future effect and already move our eyes to where it will appear. These eye movements prepare us for comparing expected and actual consequences of our actions and allow us to adapt if things did not go as planned. Here, we demonstrate that we only need to experience our action and its consequence once to start performing such anticipatory eye movements that guide our subsequent actions.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to expect and monitor the future: How fast do anticipatory saccades toward future action consequences emerge?

Gouret¹,

Pfeuffer²

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above-reviewed binding evidence suggests that the socio-affective consequences of actions are coded in a generally similar way to non-social outcomes. Previous studies have shown saccade control can be guided by action-outcome effects, albeit in a non-social context (e.g Huestegge & Kreutzfeldt, 2012;Riechelmann, Pieczykolan, Horstmann, Herwig, & Huestegge, 2017). Relatedly, one eye-tracking study demonstrated that action-effect associations are made by the oculomotor system within a social context (Herwig & Hortsmann, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eyes that bind us: Gaze leading induces an implicit sense of agency

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans feel a sense of agency over the effects their motor system causes. This is the case for manual actions such as pushing buttons, kicking footballs, and all acts that affect the physical environment. We ask whether initiating joint attention - causing another person to follow our eye movement - can elicit an implicit sense of agency over this congruent gaze response. Eye movements themselves cannot directly affect the physical environment, but joint attention is an example of how eye movements can indirectly cause social outcomes. Here we show that leading the gaze of an on-screen face induces an underestimation of the temporal gap between action and consequence (Experiments 1 and 2). This underestimation effect, named 'temporal binding,' is thought to be a measure of an implicit sense of agency. Experiment 3 asked whether merely making an eye movement in a non-agentic, non-social context might also affect temporal estimation, and no reliable effects were detected, implying that inconsequential oculomotor acts do not reliably affect temporal estimations under these conditions. Together, these findings suggest that an implicit sense of agency is generated when initiating joint attention interactions. This is important for understanding how humans can efficiently detect and understand the social consequences of their actions.

show abstract

“…The interaction of bottom-up and top-down processing is captured in many models of spatial attention and fixation distribution (e.g., Nuthmann, Smith, Engbert, & Henderson, 2010;Wolfe, Cave, & Franzel, 1989). In between this continuum from top-down to bottom-up control, other additional sources of influence have been assumed, including selection determined by previous selection targets (i.e., based on selection history), by reward contingencies associated with targets (i.e., reward history; see Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012;Hickey & van Zoest, 2012, for a review), or by other types of anticipation of effects associated with eye movements (Huestegge & Kreutzfeldt, 2012;Pfeuffer, Kiesel, & Huestegge, 2016;Riechelmann, Pieczykolan, Horstmann, Herwig, & Huestegge, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free-choice saccades and their underlying determinants: Explorations of high-level voluntary oculomotor control

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of eye-movement control distinguish between different control levels, ranging from automatic (bottom-up, stimulus-driven selection) and automatized (based on well-learned routines) to voluntary (top-down, goal-driven selection, e.g., based on instructions). However, one type of voluntary control has yet only been examined in the manual and not in the oculomotor domain, namely free-choice selection among arbitrary targets, that is, targets that are of equal interest from both a bottom-up and topdown processing perspective. Here, we ask which features of targets (identity-or location-related) are used to determine such oculomotor free-choice behavior. In two experiments, participants executed a saccade to one of four peripheral targets in three different choice conditions: unconstrained free choice, constrained free choice based on target identity (color), and constrained free choice based on target location. The analysis of choice frequencies revealed that unconstrained free-choice selection closely resembled constrained choice based on target location. The results suggest that free-choice oculomotor control is mainly guided by spatial (location-based) target characteristics. We explain these results by assuming that participants tend to avoid less parsimonious recoding of target-identity representations into spatial codes, the latter being a necessary prerequisite to configure oculomotor commands.

show abstract

Spatio-temporal dynamics of action-effect associations in oculomotor control

Cited by 12 publications

References 23 publications

Learning to expect and monitor the future: How fast do anticipatory saccades toward future action consequences emerge?

Learning to expect and monitor the future: How fast do anticipatory saccades toward future action consequences emerge?

Eyes that bind us: Gaze leading induces an implicit sense of agency

Free-choice saccades and their underlying determinants: Explorations of high-level voluntary oculomotor control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About