Learning associations between action and perception: Effects of incompatible training on body part and spatial priming

Brain and Cognition

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 87-96

  Wiggett, Alison J ^a   Hudson, Matt ^b   Tipper, Steve P ^a   Downing, Paul E ^a  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Automatic imitation; Body part priming; Learning; Mirror system; Spatial priming

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY POSITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMITATION; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; LEARNING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79955097406     PISSN: 02782626     EISSN: 10902147     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.02.014     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bach P., Tipper S.P. Implicit action encoding influences personal-trait judgements. Cognition 2007, 102:151-178.
2. Brainard D.H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:433-436.
3. Catmur C., Walsh V., Heyes C. Sensorimotor learning configures the human mirror system. Current Biology 2007, 17:1527-1531.
4. Di Pellegrino G., Fadiga L., Fogassi L., Gallese V., Rizzolatti G. Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research 1992, 91:176-189.
5. Dutzi I.B., Hommel B. The microgenesis of action-effect binding. Psychological Research 2009, 73:425-435.
6. Elsner B., Hommel B., Mentschel C., Drzezga A., Prinz W., Conrad B., et al. Linking actions and their perceivable consequences in the human brain. Neuroimage 2002, 17:364-372.
7. Gillmeister H., Catmur C., Liepelt R., Brass M., Heyes C. Experience-based priming of body-parts: A study on action imitation. Brain Research 2008, 1217:157-170.
8. Heyes C.M. Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2001, 5:253-261.
9. Heyes C. Imitation by association. Perspectives on imitation: From mirror neurons to memes 2005, 157-176. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. S. Hurley, N. Chater (Eds.).
10. Heyes C., Bird G., Johnson H., Haggard P. Experience modulates automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:233-240.
11. Heyes C., Ray E. What is the significance of imitation in animals?. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2000, 29:215-245.
12. Hickok G. Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2009, 21:1229-1243.
13. Hommel B. Spontaneous decay of response code activation. Psychological Research 1994, 56:261-268.
14. Hommel B. Action control according to theory of event coding (TEC). Psychological Research 2009, 73:512-526.
15. Hommel B., Alonso D., Fuentes L.J. Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Visual Cognition 2003, 10:965-986.
16. Iacoboni M. Neural mechanisms of imitation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2005, 15:632-637.
17. Keysers C., Perrett D.I. Demystifying social cognition: A Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:501-550.
18. Kunde W. Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:387-394.
19. Kunde W. Response priming by supraliminal and subliminal action effects. Psychological Research 2004, 68:91-96.
20. Melcher T., Weidema M., Eenshuistra R.M., Hommel B., Gruber O. The neural substrate of the ideomotor principle: An event-related fMRI analysis. Neuroimage 2008, 39:1274-1288.
21. Meltzoff A.N., Moore M.K. Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development & Parenting 1997, 6:79-192.
22. Nicoletti R., Umiltà C. Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psycholological Research 1994, 56:144-150.
23. Pelli D.G. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:437-442.
24. Phillips J.C., Ward R. S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant affordances: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition 2002, 9:540-558.
25. Press C., Bird G., Walsh E., Heyes C. Automatic imitation of intransitive actions. Brain and Cognition 2008, 67:44-50.
26. Shadmehr R., Krakauer J.W. A computational neuroanatomy for motor control. Experimenal Brain Research 2008, 185:359-381.
27. Simon J.R. Reactions towards the source of a stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1969, 81:174-176.
28. Tagliabue M., Zorzi M., Umiltà C., Bassignani F. The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:648-670.
29. Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relationship between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24:830-846.
30. Umiltà C., Nicoletti R. Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Advances in psychology 1990, Vol. 65:89-116. North-Holland, Oxford, England.
31. Vu K.-P.L. Influences on the Simon effect of prior practice with spatially incompatible mappings: Transfer within and between horizontal and vertical dimensions. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:1463-1471.
32. Vu K.-P.L., Proctor R.W. Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:813-828.
33. Vu K.-P.L., Proctor R.W., Pick D.F. Vertical versus horizontal compatibility: Left-right prevalence with bimanual keypresses. Psychological Research 2000, 64:25-40.