This study investigated the impact of contingent action effects on response production. In Experiment 1 responses of varying intensity were initiated faster when contingently followed by auditory effects of corresponding rather than of noncorresponding intensity. This response–effect (R–E) compatibility influence was robust with respect to practice, and it was not due to persisting influences of preceding R–E episodes. These results support the conclusion that R–E compatibility reflects the impact of anticipatory effect representations in response production. Experiment 2 showed that anticipatory effect codes have an impact on early processes of response production (response selection) as well as on processes that immediately precede overt responding (response initiation). Finally, they also influence the way the actions are physically performed (response execution). The results support and specify ideo-motor theories of action control that assume movements to be controlled by anticipations of their sensorial effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsR. A. & BalotaD. A. (1991). Mental chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science2153–157.
2.
AdamJ. (2000). The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with perceptual and motor factors in a visual choice reaction time task. Acta Psychologica1051–7.
3.
AdamsJ. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior3111–150.
AnzolaG. P.BertoloniG.BuchtelH. A. & RizzolattiG. (1977). Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time. Neuropsychologia15295–302.
6.
AscherslebenG. & PrinzW. (1997). Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. Journal of Motor Behavior29(1), 35–46.
7.
AscherslebenG.StennekenP.ColeJ. & PrinzW. (2002). Timing mechanisms in sensorimotor synchronization.PrinzW.HommelB.Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 227–244). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BarberP. & 0'LearyM.(1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. In HommelB.&W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135–172). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9.
BrassM.BekkeringH. & PrinzW. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica1023–22.
10.
CarltonL. G.CarltonM. J. & NewellK. M. (1987). Reaction time and response dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 337–360.
11.
De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica88198–207.
12.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In MonsellS.&J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control & cognitive processes (pp. 357–367). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
DuttaA. & ProctorR. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18801–809.
14.
EisnerB. & HommelB. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27229–240.
15.
GreenwaldA. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review77(2), 73–99.
16.
HazeltineE.(2002). The representational nature of sequence learning: Evidence for goal-based codes. In PrinzW.&B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 673–689). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
HenryF. M. & RogersD. E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreational, 31448–58.
18.
HoffmannJ. (1993). Vorhersage und Erkenntnis [Anticipation and cognition]. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
19.
HoffmannJ.SebaldA. & StockerC. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27(2), 470–82.
20.
HommelB. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research55(4), 270–279.
21.
HommelB. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon-effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21(4), 764–775.
22.
HommelB. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A (3), 546–571.
23.
HommelB.(1997). Toward and action-concept model of stimulus response compatibility. In HommelB.&W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24.
HommelB.MiisselerJ.AscherslebenG. & PrinzW. (2001). A theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(5), 849–937.
25.
JamesW. (1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890.)
26.
JonidesJ. & MackR. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin9629–44.
27.
KlappS. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance211015–1027.
28.
KlappS. T.Porter-GrahamK. A. & HoifjeldA. R. (1991). The relation of perception and motor action: Ideomotor compatibility and interference in divided attention. Journal of Motor Behavior23(3), 155–162.
29.
KnufL.AscherslebenG. & PrinzW. (2002). An analysis of ideomotor action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General130(4), 779–798.
30.
KochI. & KundeW. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory and Cognition301297–1303.
31.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT. & OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review97(2), 253–270.
32.
KornblumS. & LeeJ. W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21(4), 855–875.
33.
KornblumS. & StevensG.(2002). Intertrial effects of dimensional overlap: Findings and issues. In PrinzW.&B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 9–54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
KundeW. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27(2), 387–394.
35.
KundeW. (2003). Sequential modulations of S-R correspondence effects depend on awareness of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review10198–205.
36.
KundeW. (in press). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research.
37.
KundeW.HoffmannJ. & ZellmannP. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica109(2), 137–155.
38.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review2174–207.
39.
LuceR. D. (1986) Reaction times. Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
MattesS.UlrichR. & MillerJ. (1997). Effects of response probability on response force in simple RT. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A (2), 405–420.
41.
MillerJ. (1998). Effects of stimulus-response probability on choice reaction time: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance241521–1534.
42.
MordkoffT.MillerJ. & Roch, A.-C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2225–41.
43.
PrinzW.(1987). Ideo-motor action. In HeuerH.SandersF. A.Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 47–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
44.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2002). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In PrinzW.HommelB.Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 443–473). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
RiggioL.GawryszewskiL. G. & UmiltàC. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica62 (1), 89–100.
46.
RosenbaumD. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General109444–474.
47.
RosenbaumD. A. & KristH.(1996). Antecedents of action. In HeuerH. W. & S. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action, Vol.2 Motor skills (pp. 3–69). London, UK: Academic Press.
48.
SandersA.(1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In StelmachG. E.&J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331–354). Amsterdam: North Holland.
49.
SpijkersW. A. & WalterA. (1985). Response processing stages in choice reactions. Acta Psychologica58191–204.
50.
SternbergS. (1969). The recovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica30276–315.
51.
StevensG. & KornblumS. (2000, July). Goals and dimensional overlap: The effect of irrelevant response dimensions. Poster presented at the meeting of attention and performance XIX. Kloster Irsee, Germany.
52.
TagliabueM.ZorziM.UmiltaC & BassignaniF. (2000). The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance26648–670.
UlrichR.RinkenauerG. & MillerJ. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24915–928.
55.
Van Duren, L., & Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction time designs. Acta Psychologica, 6983–94.
56.
Van Sonderen, J. F., & vander Gon, J. J. (1991). Reaction-time-dependent differences in the initial movement direction of fast goal directed arm movements. Human Movement Science10113–126.
57.
WulfG.HoessM. & PrinzW. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior30169–179.
58.
ZiesslerM. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24962–978.
