Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning

Psychological Research

Volumn 68, Issue 2-3, 2004, Pages 138-154

  Elsner, Birgit ^a,b   Hommel, Bernhard ^a,c  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 2942746345     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-003-0151-8     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
3. Allan, L. G. & Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 1-11.
4. Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., & Helen, P. (2002). Automatic integration of non-perceptual action effect features: The case of the associative affective Simon effect. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 66, 166-173.
5. Brogden, W. J. (1962). Contiguous conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 172-176.
6. Chatlosh, D. L., Neunaber, D. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (1985). Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students. Learning and Motivation, 16, 1-34.
7. Davey, G. C. L. (1983). An associative view of human classical conditioning. In G. C. L. Davey (Ed.), Animal models of human behavior (pp. 95-114). Chichester: Wiley.
8. Dickinson, A., & Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 397-416.
9. Dickinson, A., & Shanks, D. R. (1985). Animal conditioning and human causality judgment. In L.-G. Nilsson & T. Archer (Eds.), Perspectives on learning and memory (pp. 167-191). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
11. Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (in press). Do I get what you get? Learning about the effects of self-performed and observed actions in infancy. Consciousness & Cognition.
12. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240.
13. Elsner, B., Hommel, B., Mentschel, C., Drzezga, A., Prinz, W., Conrad, B., & Siebner, H.R. (2002). Linking actions and their perceivable consequences in the human brain. NeuroImage, 17, 364-372.
14. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593-609.
15. Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early social-emotional development: Contingency perception and the social biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition (pp. 101-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Grice, G. R. (1948). The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1-16.
17. Gruber, H. E., Fink, C. D. & Damm, V. (1957). Effects of experience on perception of causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 89-93.
18. Haggard, P., Aschersleben, G., Gehrke, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Action, binding, and awareness. In Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 266-285). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297-304.
20. Hazeltine, E. (2002). The representational nature of sequence learning: Evidence for goal-based codes. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 673-489). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
22. Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stoecker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 470-482.
23. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.
24. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
25. Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176-186.
26. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281-320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
27. Hommel, B. (1998). Perceiving one's own action - and what it leads to. In J. S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems theories and a priori aspects of perception (pp. 143-179). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
28. Hommel, B. (2003a). Acquisition and control of voluntary action. In S. Maasen, W. Prinz & G. Roth (Eds.), Voluntary action: Brains, minds, and sociality (pp. 34-48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Hommel, B. (2003b). Coloring an action: Intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect. Psychological Research (in press).
30. Hommel, B., Alonso, D., & Fuentes, L. (2001). Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Talk presented at the 12th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology. Edinburgh, Scotland, September 2001.
31. Hume, D. (1739/1964). Treatise of human nature. London: Oxford University Press.
32. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.
33. Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79, 1-17.
34. Kaplan, P. S., & Hearst, E. (1982). Bridging temporal gaps between CS and US in autoshaping: Insertion of other stimuli before, during, and after CS. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 187-203.
35. Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J., & Zellmann, P. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica, 109, 137-155.
36. Meck, W. H. (1985). Postreinforcement signal processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 52-70.
37. Murata A., Gallese V., Luppino G., Kaseda M., & Sakata H. (2000). Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 2580-2601.
38. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
39. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
40. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
41. Reed, P. (1992). Effect of a signaled delay between an action and outcome of human judgement of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 81-100.
42. Reed, P. (1999). Role of a stimulus filling an action-outcome delay in human judgments of causal effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 92-102.
43. Reed, P., & Reilly, S. (1990). Context extinction following conditioning with delayed reward enhances subsequent instrumental responding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 48-55.
44. Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71-80.
45. Rescorla, R. A. (1982). Effect of a stimulus intervening between CS and US in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 131-141.
46. Rescorla, R. A. (1992). Response-outcome vs. outcome-response associations in instrumental learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 20, 223-232.
47. Rochat, P. (1998). Self-perception and action in infancy. Experimental Brain Research, 123, 102-109.
48. Seggie, J. (1975). The empirical observation of the Piagetian concept of correlation. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 32-42.
49. Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L. (1971). Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. In F. R. Brush (Ed.), Aversive conditioning and learning (pp. 347-400). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
50. Shaklee, H., & Mims, M. (1982). Sources of error in judging event covariations: Effects of memory demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 208-224.
51. Shaklee, H., & Wasserman, E. A. (1986). Judging interevent contingencies: Being right for the wrong causes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 91-94.
52. Shaklee, H., Holt, P., Elek S., & Hall, L. (1988). Covariation judgment: Improving rule use among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 59, 755-768.
53. Shanks, D. R. (1989). Selectional processes in causality judgment. Memory and Cognition, 17, 27-34.
54. Shanks, D. R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 319-354.
55. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 21, 229-261.
56. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory and Cognition, 19, 353-360.
57. Shanks, D. R., Pearson, S. M., & Dickinson, A. (1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139-159.
58. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
59. Stock, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2002). Intentional fixation of behavioural learning, or how R-O learning blocks S-R learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 127-153.
60. Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625-1640.
61. Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212-222.
62. Tolman, E. C., Hall, C. S., & Bretnall, E. P. (1932). A disproof of the law of effect and a substitution of the laws of emphasis, motivation and disruptipn. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 601-614.
63. Trapold, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different reinforcing events discriminably different? Learning and Motivation, 1, 129-140.
64. Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. (1996). Associative processes in differential outcome discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 192-204.
65. Waldmann, M. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 222-236.
66. Walker, E. L. (1969). Reinforcement - "The one ring." In J. T. Tapp (Ed.), Reinforcement and behavior (pp. 47-62). New York: Academic Press.
67. Wasserman, E. A. (1990). Detecting response-outcome relations: Toward an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 27-82.
68. Wasserman, E. A., & Miller, R. R. (1997). What's elementary about associative learning? Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 573-607.
69. Wasserman, E. A., & Shaklee, H. (1984). Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation. Memory and Cognition, 12, 270-286.
70. Young, M. E. (1995). On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 83-104.
71. Ziessler, M. (1998). Response-effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 962-978.
72. Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 595-613.
73. Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2002). Effect anticipation in action planning. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 645-672). Oxford: Oxford University Press.