The ideomotor principle and motor sequence acquisition: Tone effects facilitate movement chunking

Psychological Research

Volumn 68, Issue 2-3, 2004, Pages 126-137

  Stöcker, Christian ^a   Hoffmann, Joachim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); MUSCLE TONE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MOVEMENT; MUSCLE TONUS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME;

EID: 2942755790     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-003-0150-9     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bangert, M., Parlitz, D., & Altenmüller, E. O. (1998). Audio-motor integration in beginner and expert pianists: A combined DC-EEG and behavioural study. In N. Elsner & P. Wehner (Eds.), The Göttingen neurobiology report II (pp. 753ff). Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme.
2. Darwin, C. J., Turvey, M. T., & Crowder, R. G. (1972). An auditory analogue of the Sperling partial report procedure: Evidence for brief auditory storage. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 255-267.
3. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240.
4. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
5. 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 and performance volume XIX (pp. 673-689). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. 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, & Recreation, 31, 448-458.
7. Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stocker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in Serial Reaction Time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 470-482.
8. Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387-403.
9. Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1015-1027.
10. Klapp, S. T. (1996). Reaction time analysis of central motor control. In H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 13-35). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
11. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 387-394.
12. Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67, 153-159.
13. Rosenbaum, D. A., Inhoff, A. W., & Gordon, A. M. (1984). Choosing between movement sequences: A hierarchical editor model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 372-393.
14. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L. & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117-152). New York: Academic Press.
15. Stöcker, C., Hoffmann, J., & Sebald, A. (2003). The influence of response-effect compatibility in a serial reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 685-703.
16. Verwey, W. B. (1999). Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1693-1708.
17. 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.
18. 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.