Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 87-106

  Kunde, Wilfried ^a   Koch, Iring ^b   Hoffmann, Joachim ^c  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0742289147     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980343000143     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abrams, R. A., & Balota, D. A. (1991). Mental chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 2, 153-157.
2. Adam, J. (2000). The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with perceptual and motor factors in a visual choice reaction time task. Acta Psychological, 105, 1-7.
3. Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-150.
4. Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109, 285-299.
5. Anzola, G. P., Bertoloni, G., Buchtel, H. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1977). Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time. Neuropsychologia, 15, 295-302.
6. Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (1997). Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(1), 35-46.
7. Aschersleben, G., Stenneken, P., Cole, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Timing mechanisms in sensorimotor synchronization. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.),Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 227-244). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Barber, P., & O'Leary, M. (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135-172). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001), Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 102, 3-22.
10. Carlton, L. G., Carlton, M. J., & Newell, K. 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 Psychologica, 88, 198-207.
12. De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control & cognitive processes (pp. 357-367). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801-809.
14. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240.
15. Greenwald, A. G. (1970), Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideomotor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77(2), 73-99.
16. Hazeltine, E. (2002). The representational nature of sequence learning: Evidence for goal-based codes. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 673-689). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Henry, F. M., & Rogers, D. 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 Recreation, 31, 448-458.
18. Hoffmann, J. (1993). Vorhersage und Erkenntnis [Anticipation and cognition]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
19. Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stöcker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 470-482.
20. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55(4), 270-279.
21. Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon-effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 764-775.
22. Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(3), 546-571.
23. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward and action-concept model of stimulus response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281-320). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). A theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-937.
25. James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890.)
26. Jonides, J., & Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 29-44.
27. Klapp, S. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1015-1027.
28. Klapp, S. T., Porter-Graham, K. A., & Hoifjeld, A. R. (1991). The relation of perception and motor action: Ideomotor compatibility and interference in divided attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 23(3), 155-162.
29. Knuf, L., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2002). An analysis of ideomotor action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 779-798.
30. Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory and Cognition, 30, 1297-1303.
31. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270.
32. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. 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 Performance, 21(4), 855-875.
33. Kornblum, S., & Stevens, G. (2002). Intertrial effects of dimensional overlap: Findings and issues. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 9-54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387-394.
35. Kunde, W. (2003). Sequential modulations of S-R correspondence effects depend on awareness of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 198-205.
36. Kunde, W. (in press). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research.
37. Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J., & Zellmann, P. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica, 109(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 & Review, 2, 174-207.
39. Luce, R. D. (1986) Reaction times. Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
40. Mattes, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (1997). Effects of response probability on response force in simple RT. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(2), 405-420.
41. Miller, J. (1998). Effects of stimulus-response probability on choice reaction time: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1521-1534.
42. Mordkoff, T., Miller, J., & 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 Performance, 22, 25-41.
43. Prinz,W. (1987). Ideo-motor action. InH. Heuer &A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 47-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
44. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 443-473). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L. G., & Umiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 67(1), 89-100.
46. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474.
47. Rosenbaum, D. A., & Krist, H. (1996). Antecedents of action. In H. Heuer & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action, Vol. 2. Motor skills (pp. 3-69). London, UK: Academic Press.
48. Sanders, A. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam: North Holland.
49. Spijkers, W. A., & Walter, A. (1985). Response processing stages in choice reactions. Acta Psychologica, 58, 191-204
50. Sternberg, S. (1969). The recovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
51. Stevens, G., & Kornblum, S. (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. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of long-term-memory and short-termmemory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648-670.
53. Tlauka, M., & McKenna, F. P. (1998). Mental imagery yields stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 94, 227-252.
54. Ulrich, R., Rinkenauer, G., & Miller, J. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 915-928.
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, 69, 83-94.
56. Van Sonderen, J. F., & van der Gon, J. J. (1991). Reaction-time-dependent differences in the initial movement direction of fast goal directed arm movements. Human Movement Science, 10, 713-726.
57. Wulf, G., Hoess, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of Attention, Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169-179.
58. Ziessler, M. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 962-978.