The influence of action–outcome contingency on motivation from control

Penton, Tegan; Wang, Xingquan; Coll, Michel-Pierre; Catmur, Caroline; Bird, Geoffrey

doi:10.1007/s00221-018-5374-4

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Article the contingency between one's action and sensory feedback) has a reinforcement effect on the frequency of behavior (Rochat and Morgan, 1995;Rovee and Rovee, 1969). Furthermore, Karsh and Eitam suggested that control is an internal reward for humans, enhancing the speed of action execution and increasing the frequency of action selection (Karsh and Eitam, 2015;Karsh et al, 2016;Penton et al, 2018). We also observed this phenomenon in the moving distance among different conditions of control context (Figure 6A, see below for details of statistics).…”

Section: Kinematic Analyses: Timeline Of Control Sensingsupporting

confidence: 57%

The Active Sensing of Control Difference

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In everyday life, people control objects in the world around them to varying degrees. The processes people actively use to establish their control, while interacting with an environment containing large ambiguity, remain unknown. This study examines how people explore their control over the environment and how they detect small differences in control among objects. In the experimental task, participants moved three dots on a screen and identified one dot over which the level of control is different from that of the other two. The results support a two-step behavior mechanism underlying the sensing of control difference: People first explore their overall control in the environment, and then the results of the initial exploration are used to selectively tune the direction (i.e., either more or less) of the detected control difference, ensuring efficient and rapid detection of the type of control difference that is potentially important for further action selections.

show abstract

Section: Kinematic Analyses: Timeline Of Control Sensingsupporting

confidence: 57%

The Active Sensing of Control Difference

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main dependent variables were the median RT and correct response rate for each block. The median is robust to outliner data (Whelan 2008 ), and therefore, a previous study analyzed medians instead of means of RTs (Penton et al 2018 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The temporal dynamics in each experiment were also considered to confirm the immediate facilitation of each action effect. As a factor in control feedback, previous studies typically manipulated the contingency (Eitam et al 2013a ; Karsh and Eitam 2015a ; Karsh et al 2016 ; Penton et al 2018 ) or temporal contiguity (Eitam et al 2013a ; Karsh and Eitam 2015a ; Karsh et al 2016 ) between action and effect. Compared to the contingency, the contiguity appeared less likely to affect explicit knowledge of the degree of control (Karsh et al 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate action effects motivate actions based on the stimulus–response relationship

Tanaka

Watanabe

2020

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of event coding, an influential framework for action planning, suggests that humans first integrate stimulus, response, and action effect into representation (an event file) via their contingencies, and then, the activation of expected action effects drives the associated response. While previous studies have typically examined such functions of action effects after, rather than before or during, the acquirement of the representation, Eitam et al. (Exp Brain Res 229:475–484, 2013a) demonstrated that the presence of immediate feedback to action (i.e., action effects) can instantly elicit faster responses than delayed feedback. However, the underlying mechanism of this faciliatory effect remains unclear. Specifically, while the response–effect relationship has been highlighted, the role of stimuli has not been investigated. To address this issue, the present study conducted four experiments. We first reproduced the faciliatory effects of immediate action effects with between- and within-participants design (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). Then, we assessed whether immediate action effects facilitate response speed, when stimuli (Experiment 3) and a combination of stimuli and responses (Experiment 4) determined the delay of action effects. The identical response was executed faster when driven by stimuli associated with immediate effects than by those associated with lagged effects. This result indicates that immediate action effects do not reinforce the execution of specific motor actions itself, but facilitate actions depending on the stimulus–response relationship. We discuss the potential mechanism of the facilitation effect.

show abstract

“…The current study aims to overcome these limitations by using the recently discovered motivation from control (Eitam et al, 2013; Hemed et al, 2019; Karsh & Eitam, 2015a; Karsh et al, 2016; Penton et al, 2018) to explore whether and how the effectiveness of an action is modulated in a dynamic environment.…”

Section: The Dynamic Evaluation Of a Motor Program’s Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of an action’s effectiveness by the motor system in a dynamic environment.

Hemed

Bakbani-Elkayam

Teodorescu

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important model for explaining humans’ feeling of agency—the Comparator model—draws on ideas used to explain effective motor control. The model describes how our brain estimates the degree of control over the environment offered by a specific motor program (in short, an action’s effectiveness). However, given its current level of specification, the model is at best vague on how (or even whether) the prediction of effectiveness of an action is dynamically updated. To test the issue empirically, our participants performed multiple experimental blocks of a task (reliably shown to measure reinforcement from effectiveness) in which blocks with and without action-effects (or with spatially unpredictable feedback) were interlaced. This design creates a sinusoidal-like objective increase or decrease in effectiveness (quantified as the n-trials back probability of receiving feedback), which participants were unable to report. As previously found, response speed indexed reinforcement from effectiveness. The results suggest that reinforcement from effectiveness is sensitive to both the degree and trend of effectiveness; that is, reinforcement is sensitive to whether it is increasing, decreasing, or is unchanged. Given the previous links made between reinforcement from effectiveness and the computation of effectiveness by the motor-system, the results are the first to show an online, dynamic and complex sensitivity to a motor-programs’ effectiveness that is directly translated to its production. The importance of testing the so-called sense of agency in a dynamic environment and the implications of the current findings for a dominant model of the sense of agency are discussed.

show abstract

The influence of action–outcome contingency on motivation from control

Cited by 17 publications

References 47 publications

The Active Sensing of Control Difference

The Active Sensing of Control Difference

Immediate action effects motivate actions based on the stimulus–response relationship

Evaluation of an action’s effectiveness by the motor system in a dynamic environment.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About