Traditional response interference effects from anticipated action outcomes: A response-effect compatibility paradigm

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 138, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 106-110

  Hubbard, Jason ^a   Gazzaley, Adam ^b,c   Morsella, Ezequiel ^a,b  

^a SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Action production; Cognitive control; Flanker task; Response effect compatibility; Response interference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 80052882389     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.05.012     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barsalou L.W. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 2008, 59:617-645.
2. Cohen J.D., Dunbar K., McClelland J.L. On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review 1990, 97:332-361.
3. Cohen J.D., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., Provost J. PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1993, 25:257-271.
4. Coles M.G.H., Gratton G., Bashore T.R., Eriksen C.W., Donchin E. A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1985, 11:529-553.
5. Desimone R., Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 1995, 18:193-222.
6. Di Lollo V., Enns J.T., Rensink R.A. Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual pathways. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2000, 129:481-507.
7. Enger T., Hirsch J. Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:1784-1790.
8. Eriksen B.A., Eriksen C.W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics 1974, 16:143-149.
9. Eriksen C.W., Schultz D.W. Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics 1979, 25:249-263.
10. Gazzaley A., Cooney J.W., Rissman J., D'Esposito M. Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8:1298-1300.
11. Gray J.A. Consciousness: Creeping up on the hard problem 2004, Oxford University Press, New York.
12. Grossberg S. The link between brain learning, attention, and consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 1999, 8:1-44.
13. Hommel B. Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research 2009, 73:512-526.
14. Hommel B., Elsner B. Acquisition, representation, and control of action. Oxford handbook of human action 2009, 371-398. Oxford University Press, New York. E. Morsella, J.A. Bargh, P.M. Gollwitzer (Eds.).
15. Hommel B., Müsseler J., Aschersleben G., Prinz W. The theory of event coding: A framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:849-937.
16. Hubbard J., Morsella E., Rigby T., Gazzaley A. Inter-representational dynamics: Endogenously-generated representations in working memory yield the interference effects found with external stimuli 2010, Poster presented at the California Cognitive Science Conference, Berkeley, CA.
17. James W. Principles of psychology 1890, Holt, New York.
18. Koch I., Kunde W. Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory and Cognition 2002, 30:1297-1303.
19. Kunde W. Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:387-394.
20. Kunde W. Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research 2003, 153-159.
21. Kunde W. Response priming by supraliminal and subliminal action effects. Psychological Research 2004, 68:91-96.
22. MacLeod C.M., McDonald P.A. Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4:383-391.
23. Morsella E. The function of phenomenal states: Supramodular interaction theory. Psychological Review 2005, 112:1000-1021.
24. Morsella E., Larson L.R.L., Zarolia P., Bargh J.A. Stimulus control: The sought or unsought influence of the objects we tend to. Psicólogica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology 2011, 32:145-170.
25. Morsella E., Wilson L.E., Berger C.C., Honhongva M., Gazzaley A., Bargh J.A. Subjective aspects of cognitive control at different stages of processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2009, 71:1807-1824.
26. Morsella E., Berger C.C., Krieger S.C. Cognitive and neural components of the phenomenology of agency. Neurocase 2011, 17:209-230.
27. Simon J.R., Hinrichs J.V., Craft J.L. Auditory S-R compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1970, 86:97-102.
28. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935, 18:643-662.
29. van Veen V., Cohen J.D., Botvinick M.M., Stenger V.A., Carter C.C. Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. NeuroImage 2001, 14:1302-1308.
30. Woodworth R.S., Schlosberg H. Experimental psychology 1954, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. second edition.
31. Zwaan R.A. Experiential traces and mental simulations in language comprehension. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning 2008, 165-180. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. M. DeVega, A.M. Glenberg, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).