The planning and control model (PCM) of motorvisual priming: Reconciling motorvisual impairment and facilitation effects

Psychological Review

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 388-407

  Thomaschke, Roland ^a,b   Hopkins, Brian ^b   Christopher Miall, R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action planning; Dual tasks; Motorvisual; Movement control

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; HAND; HUMAN; MENTAL FUNCTION; METHODOLOGY; MOTOR ACTIVITY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REPETITION PRIMING; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION;

ATTENTION; HAND; HUMANS; MENTAL PROCESSES; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTOR ACTIVITY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REPETITION PRIMING; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84864296480     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027453     Document Type: Article

References (204)

1. Agnew, Z. K., Bhakoo, K. K., & Puri, B. K. (2007). The human mirror system: A motor resonance theory of mind-reading. Brain Research Reviews, 54, 286-293. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.04.003
2. Alaerts, K., Swinnen, S. P., & Wenderoth, N. (2009). Is the human primary motor cortex activated by muscular or direction-dependent features of observed movements? Cortex, 45, 1148-1155. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.005
3. Aleong, R., & Paus, T. (2010). Neural correlates of human body perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 482-495. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21211
4. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Maeda, F., Zaidel, E., Mazziotta, J., & Iacoboni, M. (2002). Lateralization in motor facilitation during action observation: A TMS study. Experimental Brain Research, 144, 127-131. doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1037-5
5. Bach, P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Implicit action encoding influences personal-trait judgments. Cognition, 102, 151-178. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.003
6. Baldauf, D., & Deubel, H. (2008). Visual attention during the preparation of bimanual movements. Vision Research, 48, 549-563. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.11.023
7. Baldauf, D., & Deubel, H. (2009). Attentional selection of multiple goal positions before rapid hand movement sequences: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 18-29. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.21021
8. Baldauf, D., & Deubel, H. (2010). Attentional landscapes in reaching and grasping. Vision Research, 50, 999-1013. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.02.008
9. Baldauf, D., Wolf, M., & Deubel, H. (2006). Deployment of visual attention before sequences of goal-directed hand movements. Vision Research, 46, 4355-4374. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.021
10. Baldissera, F., Cavallari, P., Craighero, L., & Fadiga, L. (2001). Modulation of spinal excitability during observation of hand actions in humans. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 190-194. doi:10.1046/j.0953-816x.2000.01368.x
11. Bartolo, A., Weisbecker, A., & Coello, Y. (2007). Linguistic and spatial information for action. Behavioural Brain Research, 184, 19-30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.06.011
12. Beets, I. A. M., 't Hart, B. M., Rösler, F., Henriques, D. Y. P., Einhäuser, W., & Fiehler, K. (2010). Online action-to-perception transfer: Only percept-dependent action affects perception. Vision Research, 50, 2633-2641. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.004
13. Bertenthal, B. I., Longo, M. R., & Kosobud, A. (2006). Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 210-225. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.210
14. Bidet-Ildei, C., Chauvin, A., & Coello, Y. (2010). Observing or producing a motor action improves later perception of biological motion: Evidence for a gender effect. Acta Psychologica, 134, 215-224. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.002
15. Bidet-Ildei, C., Sparrow, L., & Coello, Y. (2011). Reading action words affects the visual perception of biological motion. Acta Psychologica, 137, 330-334. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.04.001
16. Blake, R., & Shiffrar, M. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47-73. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152
17. Bonfiglioli, C., Finocchiaro, C., Gesierich, B., Rositani, F., & Vescovi, M. (2009). A kinematic approach to the conceptual representations of this and that. Cognition, 111, 270-274. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.006
18. Borroni, P., Montagna, M., Cerri, G., & Baldissera, F. (2005). Cyclic time course of motor excitability modulation during the observation of a cyclic hand movement. Brain Research, 1065, 115-124. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.034
19. Bortoletto, M., Mattingley, J. B., & Cunnington, R. (2011). Action intentions modulate visual processing during action perception. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2097-2104. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.04.004
20. Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341-358. doi:10.1037/a0017606
21. Bubic, A., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schubotz, R. I. (2010). Prediction, cognition and the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4(25). doi: 2510.3389/fnhum.2010.00025
22. Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Freund, H. J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 400-404. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2001.01385.x
23. Cardoso-Leite, P., Mamassian, P., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Waszak, F. (2010). A new look at sensory attenuation: Action-effect anticipation affects sensitivity, not response bias. Psychological Science, 21, 1740-1745. doi:10.1177/0956797610389187
24. Castiello, U., Bennett, K., & Chambers, H. (1998). Reach to grasp: The response to a simultaneous perturbation of object position and size. Experimental Brain Research, 120, 31-40. doi:10.1007/s002210050375
25. Castiello, U., Bennett, K. M. B., & Stelmach, G. E. (1993). Reach to grasp: The natural response to perturbation of object size. Experimental Brain Research, 94, 163-178. doi:10.1007/BF00230479
26. Catmur, C., & Heyes, C. (2011). Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 409-421. doi: 10.1037/a0019325
27. Christensen, A., Ilg, W., & Giese, M. A. (2011). Spatiotemporal tuning of the facilitation of biological motion perception by concurrent motor execution. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 3493-3499. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4277-10.2011
28. Collins, T., Schicke, T., & Röder, B. (2008). Action goal selection and motor planning can be dissociated by tool use. Cognition, 109, 363-371. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.001
29. Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40, 492-502. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00134-8
30. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Visuomotor priming. Visual Cognition, 5, 109-125. doi:10.1080/713756780
31. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1673-1692. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1673
32. Danckert, J. A., Sharif, N., Haffenden, A. M., Schiff, K. C., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: Planning versus online control. Experimental Brain Research, 144, 275-280. doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1073-1
33. Désmurget, M., Pélisson, D., Rossetti, Y., & Prablanc, C. (1998). From eye to hand: Planning goal-directed movements. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22, 761-788. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(98)00004-9
34. Desmurget, M., & Prablanc, C. (1997). Postural control of threedimensional prehension movements. Journal of Neurophysiology, 77, 452-464.
35. Desmurget, M., Prablanc, C., Arzi, M., Rossetti, Y., Paulignan, Y., & Urquizar, C. (1996). Integrated control of hand transport and orientation during prehension movements. Experimental Brain Research, 110, 265-278. doi:10.1007/BF00228557
36. Desmurget, M., Prablanc, C., Rossetti, Y., Arzi, M., Paulignan, Y., Urquizar, C., & Mignot, J. C. (1995). Postural and synergetic control for 3-dimensional movements of reaching and grasping. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74, 905-910.
37. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827-1837. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4
38. Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5, 81-107. doi:10.1080/713756776
39. Deutsch, D., Hamaoui, K., & Henthorn, T. (2007). The glissando illusion and handedness. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2981-2988. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.015
40. Diedrichsen, J., Shadmehr, R., & Ivry, R. B. (2010). The coordination of movement: Optimal feedback control and beyond. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 31-39. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.11.004
41. Donders, F. C. (1868). Die Schnelligkeit psychischer Processe: Erster Artikel [On the speed of mental processes: Article 1]. Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin, 657-681.
42. Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2007). Common valence coding in action and evaluation: Affective blindness towards response-compatible stimuli. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1297-1322. doi:10.1080/02699930701438277
43. Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2009). A common-coding account of the bidirectional evaluation-behavior link. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 218-235. doi:10.1037/a0015220
44. Eder, A. B., Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (2012). The structure of affective action representations: Temporal binding of affective response codes. Psychological Research, 76, 111-118.
45. Elliott, D., Helsen, W. F., & Chua, R. (2001). A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 342-357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.342
46. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229
47. Engel, A., Burke, M., Fiehler, K., Bien, S., & Rösler, F. (2008). What activates the human mirror neuron system during observation of artificial movements: Bottom-up visual features or top-down intentions? Neuropsychologia, 46, 2033-2042. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsycholo-gia.2008.01.025
48. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., & Olivier, E. (2005). Human motor cortex excitability during the perception of others' action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 213-218. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.013
49. Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor facilitation during action observation: A magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73, 2608-2611.
50. Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007). Controlling attention through action: Observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 45, 3351-3355. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsycholo-gia.2007.06.012
51. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71, 22-29. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0033-3
52. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492. doi:10.1037/h0054967
53. Fleming, J., Klatzky, R. L., & Behrmann, M. (2002). Time course of planning for object and action parameters in visually guided manipulation. Visual Cognition, 9, 502-527. doi:10.1080/13506280143000557
54. Fournier, L. R., Wiediger, M. D., McMeans, R., Mattson, P. S., Kirkwood, J., & Herzog, T. (2010). Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response. Psychological Research, 74, 359-369. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0256-9
55. Franz, V. H., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2008). Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 920-950. doi:10.1080/02643290701862449
56. Franz, V. H., Scharnowski, F., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2005). Illusion effects on grasping are temporally constant not dynamic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1359-1378. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1359
57. Gangitano, M., Mottaghy, F. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2001). Phasespecific modulation of cortical motor output during movement observation. NeuroReport, 12, 1489-1492. doi:10.1097/00001756-200105250-00038
58. Gangitano, M., Mottaghy, F. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2004). Modulation of premotor mirror neuron activity during observation of unpredictable grasping movements. European Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 2193-2202. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03655.x
59. Gentilucci, M., Benuzzi, F., Bertolani, L., Daprati, E., & Gangitano, M. (2000). Language and motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 133, 468-490. doi:10.1007/s002210000431
60. Gentilucci, M., & Gangitano, M. (1998). Influence of automatic word reading on motor control. European Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 752-756. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00060.x
61. Gherri, E., & Eimer, M. (2010). Manual response preparation disrupts spatial attention: An electrophysiological investigation of links between action and attention. Neuropsychologia, 48, 961-969. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.017
62. Giese, M. A., Thornton, I., & Edelman, S. (2008). Metrics of the perception of body movement. Journal of Vision, 8, 1-18. doi:1310.1167/8.9.13
63. Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 288-292. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01920-4
64. Glover, S. (2004a). Planning and control in action (Author's response). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 57-69.
65. Glover, S. (2004b). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 24-78. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000020
66. Glover, S. R., & Dixon, P. (2001a). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 560-572. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.560
67. Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2001b). The role of vision in the on-line correction of illusion effects on action. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 96-103. doi:10.1037/h0087356
68. Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2002a). Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: Support for a planning-control model of action. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 266-278. doi:10.3758/BF03195791
69. Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2002b). Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 383-387. doi: 10.1007/s00221-002-1222-6
70. Glover, S., Miall, R. C., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2005). Parietal rTMS disrupts the initiation but not the execution of on-line adjustments to a perturbation of object size. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 124-136. doi:10.1162/0898929052880066
71. Goldman, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 154-159. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.007
72. Gosselin-Kessiby, N., Messier, J., & Kalaska, J. F. (2008). Evidence for automatic on-line adjustments of hand orientation during natural reaching movements to stationary targets. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99, 1653-1671. doi:10.1152/jn.00980.2007
73. Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2011). Seeing while acting: Hand movements can modulate attentional capture by motion onset. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2448-2456. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0203-x
74. Graf, M., Reitzner, B., Corves, C., Casile, A., Giese, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Predicting point-light actions in real-time. NeuroImage, 36, T22-T32. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.017
75. Grafton, S. T. (2009). Embodied cognition and the simulation of action to understand others. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 97-117. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04425.x
76. Grierson, L. E. M., & Elliott, D. (2009). The impact of real and illusory target perturbations on manual aiming. Experimental Brain Research, 197, 279-285. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1912-4
77. Grosjean, M., Zwickel, J., & Prinz, W. (2009). Acting while perceiving: Assimilation precedes contrast. Psychological Research, 73, 3-13. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0146-6
78. Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (1998). The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 122-136. doi:10.1162/089892998563824
79. Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D., & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person's action. Current Biology, 14, 493-498. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.03.007
80. Handlovsky, I., Hansen, S., Lee, T. D., & Elliott, D. (2004). The Ebbinghaus illusion affects on-line movement control. Neuroscience Letters, 366, 308-311. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.05.056
81. Hesse, C., & Franz, V. H. (2009). Corrective processes in grasping after perturbations of object size. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41, 253-273. doi:10.3200/JMBR.41.3.253-273
82. Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(A), 546-571.
83. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
84. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512-526. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2
85. Hommel, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In B. J. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 121-140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86. Hommel, B., & Müsseler, J. (2006). Action-feature integration blinds to feature-overlapping perceptual events: Evidence from manual and vocal actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 509-523. doi:10.1080/02724980443000836
87. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103
88. Hommel, B., & Schneider, W. X. (2002). Visual attention and manual response selection: Distinct mechanisms operating on the same codes. Visual Cognition, 9, 392-420. doi:10.1080/13506280143000511
89. Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., Linnell, K. J., Punt, D. J., Edwards, M. G., & Wing, A. M. (2005). Attending to what you are doing: Neuropsychological and experimental evidence for interactions between perception and action. In G. W. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds.), Attention in action: Advances from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 3-25). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
90. Jackson, S. R., & Shaw, A. (2000). The Ponzo illusion affects grip-force but not grip-aperture scaling during prehension movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 418-423.
91. Jacobs, A., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Walking perception by walking observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 157-169. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.157
92. James, K. H., & Gauthier, I. (2009). When writing impairs reading: Letter perception's susceptibility to motor interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 416-431. doi:10.1037/a0015836
93. Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387-403. doi:10.1037/h0026739
94. Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Variable action effects: Response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research, 68, 155-162. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0152-7
95. Kilner, J. M., Neal, A., Weiskopf, N., Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D. (2009). Evidence of mirror neurons in human inferior frontal gyrus. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 10153-10159. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2668-09.2009
96. Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13, 522-525. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00165-9
97. Koch, I., Metin, B., & Schuch, S. (2003). The role of temporal unpredictability for process interference and code overlap in perception-action dual tasks. Psychological Research, 67, 244-252. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0125-2
98. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
99. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
100. Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). You can play 20 questions with nature and win: Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations as a case study. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1519-1523. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.022
101. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Gitelman, D. R., & Alpert, N. M. (1998). Neural systems that encode categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: PET investigations. Psychobiology, 26, 333-347.
102. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387-394. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387
103. Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2006). See what you've done! Active touch affects the number of perceived visual objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 304-309. doi:10.3758/BF03193848
104. Kunde, W., & Stöcker, C. (2002). A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 55(A), 581-592. doi:10.1080/02724980143000433
105. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2004). Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli. Psychological Research, 68, 199-207. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0156-3
106. Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1189-1207. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1189
107. Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238. doi:10.3758/BF03196277
108. Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Object manipulation and motion perception: Evidence of an Influence of action planning on visual processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1062-1071. doi:10.1037/a0015023
109. Lindemann, O., Stenneken, P., van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Semantic activation in action planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 633-643. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.633
110. Linnell, K. J., Humphreys, G. W., McIntyre, D. B., Laitinen, S., & Wing, A. M. (2005). Action modulates object-based selection. Vision Research, 45, 2268-2286. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.02.015
111. Liu, G., Chua, R., & Enns, J. T. (2008). Attention for perception and action: Task interference for action planning, but not for online control. Experimental Brain Research, 185, 709-717. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1196-5
112. Logan, G. D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103-174. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1004
113. Longo, M. R., & Bertenthal, B. I. (2009). Attention modulates the specificity of automatic imitation to human actors. Experimental Brain Research, 192, 739-744. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1649-5
114. Loula, F., Prasad, S., Harber, K., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Recognizing people from their movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 210-220. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.210
115. Maruya, K., Yang, E., & Blake, R. (2007). Voluntary action influences visual competition. Psychological Science, 18, 1090-1098. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02030.x
116. Mattson, P. S., & Fournier, L. R. (2008). An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus, but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1236-1247. doi:10.3758/MC.36.7.1236
117. Meegan, D. V., Glazebrook, C. M., Dhillon, V. P., Tremblay, L., Welsh, T. N., & Elliott, D. (2004). The Müller-Lyer illusion affects the planning and control of manual aiming movements. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 37-47. doi:10.1007/s00221-003-1702-3
118. Mendoza, J. E., Elliott, D., Meegan, D. V., Lyons, J. L., & Welsh, T. N. (2006). The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on the planning and control of manual aiming movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 413-422. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.413
119. Metta, G., Sandini, G., Natale, L., Craighero, L., & Fadiga, L. (2006). Understanding mirror neurons: A bio-robotic approach. Interaction Studies, 7, 197-232. doi:10.1075/is.7.2.06met
120. Miall, R. C. (1998). The cerebellum, predictive control and motor coordination. In G. R. Bock & J. A. Goode (Eds.), Sensory guidance of movement (pp. 272-290). Chichester, England: Wiley.
121. Miall, R. C. (2003). Connecting mirror neurons and forward models. NeuroReport, 14, 2135-2137. doi:10.1097/00001756-200312020-00001
122. Miall, R. C., Stanley, J., Todhunter, S., Levick, C., Lindo, S., & Miall, J. D. (2006). Performing hand actions assists the visual discrimination of similar hand postures. Neuropsychologia, 44, 966-976. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.006
123. Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Correlations between spatial compatibility effects: Are arrows more like locations or words? Psychological Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0378-8
124. Müsseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 121-147). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(99)80014-4
125. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861-872. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.861
126. Müsseler, J., Koch, I., & Wühr, P. (2005). Testing the boundary conditions for processing irrelevant location information: The cross-task Simon effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 708-726. doi: 10.1080/09541440540000068
127. Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect perceptual processing? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 54(A), 137-154. doi:10.1080/02724980042000057
128. Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance IXI (pp. 520-537). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
129. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., Danielmeier, C., & Zysset, S. (2005). Actioninduced blindness with lateralized stimuli and responses. Experimental Brain Research, 160, 214-222. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2009-8
130. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743-767. doi:10.1080/13506280050144416
131. Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Johnson, B. W. (2007). A dual mechanism neural framework for social understanding. Philosophical Psychology, 20, 43-63. doi:10.1080/09515080601085864
132. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 666-670. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.4.666
133. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2010). Effector identity and orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility in blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Psychological Research, 74, 172-181. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0228-0
134. Oriet, C., Stevanovski, B., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). Congruency-induced blindness: A cost-benefit analysis. Acta Psychologica, 112, 243-258. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00107-5
135. Oriet, C., Stevanovski, B., & Jolicœur, P. (2007). Feature binding and episodic retrieval in blindness for congruent stimuli: Evidence from analyses of sequential congruency. Psychological Research, 71, 30-41. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0034-2
136. Oriet, C., Stevanovski, B., Jolicœur, P., & Cowan, W. B. (2003). Lengthening the duration of response execution does not modulate blindness to action-compatible stimuli. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 11-22. doi:10.1037/h0087409
137. Paprotta, I., Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1999). Object recognition and goal-directed eye or hand movements are coupled by visual attention. In W. Becker, H. Deubel, & T. Mergner (Eds.), Current oculomotor research: Physiological and psychological aspects (pp. 241-248). New York, NY: Kluwer.
138. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
139. Paulignan, Y., Jeannerod, M., Mackenzie, C., & Marteniuk, R. (1991). Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements: II. The effects of changing object size. Experimental Brain Research, 87, 407-420.
140. Paulignan, Y., Mackenzie, C., Marteniuk, R., & Jeannerod, M. (1991). Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements: I. The effects of changing object position. Experimental Brain Research, 83, 502-512.
141. Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9, 559-590. doi:10.1080/13506280143000584
142. Pfister, R., Heinemann, A., Kiesel, A., Thomaschke, R., & Janczyk, M. (2011). Do endogenous and exogenous action control compete for perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0026658
143. Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Learning at any rate: Action-effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research, 75, 61-65. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0288-1
144. Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 316-322. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.006
145. Pinto, J., & Shiffrar, M. (2009). The visual perception of human and animal motion in point-light displays. Social Neuroscience, 4, 332-346. doi: 10.1080/17470910902826820
146. Prablanc, C., & Pélisson, D. (1990). Gaze saccade orienting and hand pointing are locked to their goal by quick internal loops. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 653-676). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
147. Press, C., Gherri, E., Heyes, C., & Eimer, M. (2010). Action preparation helps and hinders perception of action. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2198-2211. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21409
148. Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
149. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
150. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11-37). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(97)80024-6.
151. Proteau, L., Boivin, K., Linossier, S., & Abahnini, K. (2000). Exploring the limits of peripheral vision for the control of movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32, 277-286. doi:10.1080/00222890009601378
152. Riva, G., Gaggioli, A., & Mantovani, F. (2008). Are robots present? From motor simulation to "being there." CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 631-636. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0265
153. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31-40. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(87)90041-8
154. Romaiguère, P., Hasbroucq, T., Possamaï, C. A., & Seal, J. (1993). Intensity to force translation: A new effect of stimulus-response compatibility revealed by analysis of response-time and electromyographic activity of a prime mover. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 197-201. doi:10.1016/0926-6410(93)90028-4
155. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113-129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004
156. Schiegg, A., Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (2003). Attentional selection during preparation of prehension movements. Visual Cognition, 10, 409-431. doi:10.1080/13506280244000140
157. Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260. doi:10.1037/h0076770
158. Schneider, W. X. (1995). VAM: A neuro-cognitive model for visual attention control of segmentation, object recognition, and space-based motor action. Visual Cognition, 2, 331-376. doi:10.1080/13506289508401737
159. Schubö, A., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Interactions between perception and action in a reaction task with overlapping S-R assignments. Psychological Research, 65, 145-157. doi:10.1007/s004260100061
160. Schubö, A., Prinz, W., & Aschersleben, G. (2004). Perceiving while acting: Action affects perception. Psychological Research, 68, 208-215. doi: 10.1007/s00426-003-0133-x
161. Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Prediction of external events with our motor system: Towards a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 211-218. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.006
162. Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Actioninduced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 349-355. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.005
163. Scorolli, C., Borghi, A. M., & Glenberg, A. (2009). Language-induced motor activity in bi-manual object lifting. Experimental Brain Research, 193, 43-53. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1593-4
164. Serino, A., De Filippo, L., Casavecchia, C., Coccia, M., Shiffrar, M., & Làdavas, E. (2010). Lesions to the motor system affect action perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 413-426.
165. Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943-974. doi:10.1037/a0020541
166. Sparenberg, P., Springer, A., & Prinz, W. (2012). Predicting others' actions: Evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation. Psychological Research, 76, 41-49. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0321-z
167. Springer, A., Brandstädter, S., Liepelt, R., Birngruber, T., Giese, M., Mechsner, F., & Prinz, W. (2011). Motor execution affects action prediction. Brain and Cognition, 76, 26-36. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.007
168. Stanley, J., Gowen, E., & Miall, R. C. (2007). Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 915-926. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.915
169. Stanley, J., & Miall, R. C. (2009). Using predictive motor control processes in a cognitive task: Behavioral and neuroanatomical perspectives. In D. Sternad (Ed.), Progress in motor control: A multidisciplinary perspective (Vol. 629, pp. 337-354). New York, NY: Springer.
170. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 56, 65-74. doi:10.1037/h0087386
171. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicœur, P. (2006). Symbolicand responserelated contributions to blindness to compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 14, 326-350. doi:10.1080/13506280500296470
172. 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1625
173. Stürmer, B., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2000). Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: A study of imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1746-1759. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.6.1746
174. Symes, E., Ottoboni, G., Tucker, M., Ellis, R., & Tessari, A. (2010). When motor attention improves selective attention: The dissociating role of saliency. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1387-1397. doi:10.1080/17470210903380806
175. Symes, E., Tucker, M., Ellis, R., Vainio, L., & Ottoboni, G. (2008). Grasp preparation improves change detection for congruent objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 854-871. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.854
176. Tausche, P., Springer, A., & Prinz, W. (2009). Motor interference in action simulation. In A. Carassa, F. Morganti, & G. Riva (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: Paving the way for a dialogue between cognitive science, social cognition and neuroscience (pp. 210-223). Lugano, Switzerland: IPSC.
177. Thomaschke, R., Hopkins, B., & Miall, R. C. (2011). The role of cueresponse mapping in motorvisual impairment and facilitation: Evidence for different roles of action planning and action control in motorvisual dual-task priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0024794
178. Thornton, I. M. (2006). Biological motion: Point-light walkers and beyond. In G. Knoblich, I. M. Thornton, M. Grosjean, & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Human body perception from the inside out (pp. 271-303). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
179. Thornton, I. M., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Action perception: Seeing the world through a moving body. Current Biology, 16, R27-R29. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.12.006
180. Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009). Motormouth: Mere exposure depends on stimulus-specific motor simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 423-433. doi:10.1037/a0014504
181. Umiltà, C., Mucignat, C., Riggio, L., Barbieri, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1994). Programming shifts of spatial attention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 23-41. doi:10.1080/09541449408520133
182. van de Kamp, C., Bongers, R. M., & Zaal, F. T. J. M. (2009). Effects of changing object size during prehension. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41, 427-435. doi:10.3200/35-08-033
183. van Donkelaar, P. (1999). Pointing movements are affected by sizecontrast illusions. Experimental Brain Research, 125, 517-520. doi: 10.1007/s002210050710
184. van Doorn, H., van der Kamp, J., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2007). Grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion: The contributions of vision for perception in action. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1939-1947. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia .2006.11.008
185. Vogt, S., Taylor, P., & Hopkins, B. (2003). Visuomotor priming by pictures of hands: Perspective matters. Neuropsychologia, 41, 941-951. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00319-6
186. Vogt, S., & Thomaschke, R. (2007). From visuo-motor interactions to imitation learning: Behavioural and brain imaging studies. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 497-517. doi:10.1080/02640410600946779
187. Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response code modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201-1217. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1201
188. Ward, R. (2002). Integration and independence of perception and action: An introduction. Visual Cognition, 9, 385-391. doi:10.1080/13506280042000502
189. Westwood, D. A., Chapman, C. D., & Roy, E. A. (2000). Pantomimed actions may be controlled by the ventral visual stream. Experimental Brain Research, 130, 545-548. doi:10.1007/s002219900287
190. Wiediger, M. D., & Fournier, L. R. (2008). An action sequence withheld in memory can delay execution of visually guided actions: The generalization of response compatibility interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1136-1149. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1136
191. Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460-473. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.460
192. Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1212-1217. doi: 10.1038/81497
193. Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C., & Kawato, M. (1998). Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 338-347. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01221-2
194. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to responsecompatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260-1270. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.5.1260
195. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2002). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Visual Cognition, 9, 421-457. doi:10.1080/13506280143000520
196. Wykowska, A., Hommel, B., & Schubö, A. (2011). Action-induced effects on perception depend neither on element-level nor on set-level similarity between stimulus and response sets. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1034-1041. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0122-x
197. Wykowska, A., Maldonado, A., Beetz, M., & Schubö, A. (2011). How humans optimize their interaction with the environment: The impact of action context on human perception. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3, 223-231.
198. Wykowska, A., Schubö, A., & Hommel, B. (2009). How you move is what you see: Action planning biases selection in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1755-1769. doi:10.1037/a0016798
199. Yabe, Y., & Taga, G. (2008). Treadmill locomotion captures visual perception of apparent motion. Experimental Brain Research, 191, 487-494. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1541-3
200. Zwickel, J. (2009). Agency attribution and visuospatial perspective taking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1089-1093. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.6.1089
201. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Seeing while moving: Measuring the online influence of action on perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1063-1071. doi:10.1080/17470210701288722
202. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2008). A contrast effect between the concurrent production and perception of movement directions. Visual Cognition, 16, 953-978. doi:10.1080/13506280701653586
203. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010). On interference effects in concurrent perception and action. Psychological Research, 74, 152-171. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0226-2
204. Zwickel, J., & Prinz, W. (2011). Assimilation and contrast: The two sides of specific interference between action and perception. Psychological Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0338-3