A previous study on ideomotor action control showed that predictable action effects in the agent’s environment influenced how an action is carried out. If participants were required to perform a forceful keypress, they exerted more force when these actions would produce a quiet compared to a loud tone, and this observation suggests that anticipated proprioceptive and auditory action effects are integrated with each other during action planning and control. In light of the typically weak influence of body-related effect found in recent work, we aimed to extend this pattern of results to the intra-modal case of integrating proprioceptive/tactile feedback of a movement and following vibro-tactile effects. Our results suggest that the same weighted integration process as for the cross-modal case applies to the intra-modal case. These observations support the idea of a common mechanism which binds all action-related features in an integrated action representation, irrespective of whether these features relate to exafferent or reafferent signals.
AscherslebenG. (2002). Temporal control of movements in sensorimotor synchronization. Brain and Cognition, 48(1), 66–79.
2.
AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (1995). Synchronizing actions with events: The role of sensory information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(3), 305–317.
3.
AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (1997). Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(1), 35–46.
4.
BainA. (1855). The senses and the intellect. John W Parker & Son, West Strand.
5.
BillonM.BardC.FleuryM.BlouinJ.TeasdaleN. (1996). Simultaneity of two effectors in synchronization with a periodic external signal. Human Movement Science, 15(1), 25–38.
6.
BjörkmanM. (1967). Relations between intra-modal and cross-modal matching. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 65–76.
7.
CamusT.HommelB.BrunelL.BrouilletT. (2018). From anticipation to integration: The role of integrated action-effects in building sensorimotor contingencies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1059–1065.
8.
CollinsD. F.RefshaugeK. M.ToddG.GandeviaS. C. (2005). Cutaneous receptors contribute to kinesthesia at the index finger, elbow and knee. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 1699–1706.
9.
FraisseP. (1980). Les synchronisations sensori-motrices aux rythmes [The sensorimotor synchronization of rhythms]. In RequinJ. (Ed.) Anticipation et comportement (pp. 233–257). Centre National.
10.
GapenneO. (2014). The co-constitution of the self and the world: Action and proprioceptive coupling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 594.
11.
GibsonJ. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69(6), 477–491.
12.
HarleßE. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens [The apparatus of will]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38, 50–73.
13.
HerbartJ. F. (1825). Psychologie als Wissenschaft, neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik, und Mathematik [Psychology as a science, newly founded on experience, metaphysics and mathematics] (Vol. 2). Unzer.
14.
HommelB. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.
15.
HorváthJ.BíróB.NeszmélyiB. (2018). Action-effect related motor adaptation in interactions with everyday devices. Scientific Reports, 8, Article 6592.
16.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). Henry Holt and Company.
17.
JASP Team. (2019). JASP (Version 0.11.1)[Computer software].
18.
KundeW. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394.
KundeW. (2006). Antezedente Effektrepräsentationen in der Verhaltenssteuerung [Antecedent effect codes in action control]. Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 34–42.
21.
KundeW.KochI.HoffmannJ. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(1), 87–106.
22.
LegrandD. (2007). Naturalizing the acting self: Subjective vs. anonymous agency. Philosophical Psychology, 20(4), 457–478.
23.
LestageH.CamusT.DruV.BrouilletT. (2018). How movement direction shapes the spatial representation of its effects: About the consequence of the ideomotor bidirectional association. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1717–1731.
24.
LotzeR. H. (1852). Medizinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele [Medical psychology or physiology of the soul]. Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.
25.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324.
26.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Éditions Gallimard [Éditions Gallimard].
27.
NeszmélyiB.HorváthJ. (2017). Consequences matter: Self-induced tones are used as feedback to optimize tone-eliciting actions. Psychophysiology, 54(6), 904–915.
28.
PaillardJ. (1949). Quelques données psychophysiologiques au déclenchement de la commande motrice [Some psychophysiological data relating to the triggering of motor commands]. L’Année Psychologique, 48, 28–47.
29.
PfisterR. (2019). Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for empirical approaches to ideomotor action control. Psychological Review, 126(1), 153–161.
30.
PfisterR.JanczykM. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80.
31.
PfisterR.JanczykM.GressmannM.FournierL. R.KundeW. (2014). Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 232(3), 847–854.
32.
ProskeU.GandeviaS. C. (2012). The proprioceptive senses: Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiological Reviews, 92(4), 1651–1697.
33.
ReppB. H. (2005). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 969–992.
34.
RouderJ. N.MoreyR. D.SpeckmanP. L.ProvinceJ. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374.
35.
ShinY. K.ProctorR. W.CapaldiE. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974.
36.
StockA.StockC. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 176–188.
37.
ThébaultG.MichallandA. H.DerozierV.ChabrierS.BrouilletD. (2018). When the vibrations allow for anticipating the force to be produced: An extend to Pfister et al. (2014). Experimental Brain Research, 236, 1219–1223.
38.
ThompsonE. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 407–427.
39.
WessleinA. K.SpenceC.FringsC. (2014). When vision influences the invisible distractor: Tactile response compatibility effects require vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 763–774.
40.
WirthR.PfisterR.BrandesJ.KundeW. (2016). Stroking me softly: Body-related effects in effect-based action control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(6), 1755–1770.
41.
YoshiokaT.CraigJ. C.BeckG. C.HsiaoS. S. (2011). Perceptual constancy of texture roughness in the tactile system. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(48), 17603-17611.
42.
ZmigrodS.SpapéM.HommelB. (2009). Intermodal event files: Integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action. Psychological Research, 73(5), 674–684.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
