Embodied Rules in Tool Use: A Tool-Switching Study

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 359-372

  Beisert, Miriam ^a   Massen, Cristina ^b   Prinz, Wolfgang ^a  

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

^b LEIBNIZ RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WORKING ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN FACTORS   (Germany)

Author keywords

movement effect compatibility; tool use; tool switching paradigm; transformation rule

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

COGNITION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77950559473     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0016801     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adamo, M., & Ferber, S. (in press). A picture says more than a thousand words: Behavioural and ERP evidence for attentional enhancements due to action affordances. Neuropsychologia
2. Allport D.A., Styles E.A., and Hsieh S. Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: Umiltà C., and Moscovitch M. (Eds). Attention and performance XV (1994), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 421-452
3. Ansorge U. Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica 109 (2002) 285-299
4. Bozeat S., Ralph M.A., Patterson K., and Hodges J.R. The influence of personal familiarity and context on object use in semantic dementia. Neurocase 8 (2002) 127-134
5. Campbell K.C., and Proctor R.W. Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19 (1993) 1345-1362
6. Dassonville P., Lewis S.M., Foster H.E., and Ashe J. Choice and stimulus-response compatibility affect duration of response selection. Cognitive Brain Research 7 (1999) 235-240
7. De Jong R., Liang C.C., and Lauber E. Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20 (1994) 731-750
8. Dutta A., and Proctor R.W. Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18 (1992) 801-809
9. Ehrenstein A., and Proctor R.W. Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks. Psychological Research 61 (1998) 231-248
10. Fitts P.M., and Seeger C.M. S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology 46 (1953) 199-210
11. Forstmann B.U., Brass M., and Koch I. Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychological Research 71 (2007) 393-400
12. Gade M., and Koch I. Cue-task associations in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60 (2007) 762-769
13. Goldenberg G., Hentze S., and Hermsdörfer J. The effect of tactile feedback on pantomime of tool use in apraxia. Neurology 63 (2004) 1863-1867
14. Hoffmann J. Vorhersage und Erkenntnis. Die Funktion von Antizipationen in der menschlichen Verhaltenssteuerung und Wahrnehmung (Anticipation and cognition. The function of anticipations in human behavioral control and perception) (1993), Hogrefe Press, Göttingen, Germany
15. Holmes N.P., Calvert G.A., and Spence C. Extending or projecting peripersonal space with tools? Multisensory interactions highlight only the distal and proximal ends of tools. Neuroscience Letters 372 (2004) 62-67
16. Hommel B. No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception & Psychophysics 58 (1996) 102-110
17. Hommel B. Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition 5 (1998) 183-216
18. Hommel B. Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (2004) 494-500
19. Hommel B., Müsseler J., Aschersleben G., and Prinz W. The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (2001) 849-937
20. Hsieh S., and Chen P. The effect of task preparation in task switching as reflected on lateralized readiness potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology 63 (2007) 98-104
21. Hübner R., and Druey M.D. Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting?. Psychological Research 70 (2006) 245-261
22. Humphreys G.W., and Riddoch M.J. One more cup of coffee for the road: Object-action assemblies, response blocking and response capture after frontal lobe damage. Experimental Brain Research 133 (2000) 81-93
23. Hunt A.R., and Klein R.M. Eliminating the cost of task set reconfiguration. Memory & Cognition 30 (2002) 529-539
24. Hutton S.B. Cognitive control of saccadic eye movements. Brain and Cognition 68 (2008) 327-340
25. Imamizu H., Kuroda T., Yoshioka T., and Kawato M. Functional magnetic resonance imaging examination of two modular architectures for switching multiple internal models. Journal of Neuroscience 24 (2004) 1173-1181
26. James W. The principles of psychology (1981), Dover, New York (Original work published 1890)
27. Jersild A.T. Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology 14 (1927) 81
28. Keller P.E., and Koch I. The planning and execution of short auditory sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13 (2006) 711-716
29. Kiesel A., and Hoffmann J. Variable action effects: Response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research 68 (2004) 155-162
30. Kleinsorge T. Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica 103 (1999) 295-310
31. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., and Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 97 (1990) 253-270
32. Kunde W. Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27 (2001) 387-394
33. Kunde W., Müsseler J., and Heuer H. Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors 49 (2007) 661-670
34. Logan G.D., and Bundesen C. Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 29 (2003) 575-599
35. Massen C., and Prinz W. Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33 (2007) 692-704
36. Mayr U. What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13 (2006) 794-799
37. Mayr U., and Bryck R.L. Sticky rules: Integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31 (2005) 337-350
38. Mayr U., and Keele S.W. Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129 (2000) 4-26
39. Mayr U., and Kliegl R. Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29 (2003) 362-372
40. Meiran N. Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22 (1996) 1423-1442
41. Meiran N., and Daichman A. Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Memory & Cognition 33 (2005) 1272-1288
42. Monsell S., and Mizon G.A. Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32 (2006) 493-516
43. Monsell S., Sumner P., and Waters H. Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory and Cognition 31 (2003) 327-342
44. Müsseler J., Kunde W., Gausepohl D., and Heuer H. Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 20 (2008) 211-231
45. Pashler H., and Baylis G.C. Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17 (1991) 33-48
46. Prinz W. Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 9 (1997) 129-154
47. Reuter B., Philipp A.M., Koch I., and Kathmann N. Effects of switching between leftward and rightward pro- and antisaccades. Biological Psychology 72 (2006) 88-95
48. Riddoch M.J., Humphreys G.W., Heslop J., and Castermans E. Dissociations between object knowledge and everyday action. Neurocase 8 (2002) 100-110
49. Rogers R.D., and Monsell S. Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124 (1995) 207-231
50. Rubinstein J.S., Meyer D.E., and Evans J.E. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 27 (2001) 763-797
51. Rushworth M.F., Hadland K.A., Paus T., and Sipila P.K. Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: A combined fMRI and TMS study. Journal of Neurophysiology 87 (2002) 2577-2592
52. Schneider D.W., and Logan G.D. Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13 (2006) 145-151
53. Schuch S., and Koch I. The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30 (2004) 566-582
54. Schwartz D.L., and Black J.B. Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science 20 (1996) 457-497
55. Schwartz D.L., and Martin T. Embodied imagery and the urge to rules. Journal of Mental Imagery 26 (2002) 75-78
56. Stins J.F., and Michaels C.F. Stimulus-response compatibility for absolute and relative spatial correspondence in reaching and in button pressing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 53 (2000) 569-589
57. Tucker M., and Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 24 (1998) 830-846
58. Vu K.P., and Proctor R.W. Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 57 (2004) 539-556
59. Waszak F., Hommel B., and Allport A. Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task switching: Negative priming and competitor priming. Memory and Cognition 33 (2005) 595-610
60. Wolpert D.M., and Flanagan J.R. Motor prediction. Current Biology 11 (2001) R729-R732