Do endogenous and exogenous action control compete for perception?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 279-284

  Pfister, Roland ^a   Heinemann, Alexander ^a   Kiesel, Andrea ^a   Thomaschke, Roland ^b   Janczyk, Markus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Action control; Action induced blindness; Effect anticipation; Endogenous versus exogenous

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTICIPATION; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; CONTROL; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ANTICIPATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865329845     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0026658     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akyürek, E. G., Riddell, P. M., Toffanin, P., & Hommel, B. (2007). Adaptive control of event integration: Evidence from event-related po-tentials. Psychophysiology, 44, 383-391. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00513.x
2. Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psy-chologica, 109, 285-299. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00062-2
3. Astor-Jack, T., & Haggard, P. (2005). Intention and reactivity. In G. W. Humphreys & J. M. Riddoch (Eds.), Attention in action: Advances from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 109-130). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203449226_chapter_5
4. Brass, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). The what, when, whether model of intentional action. The Neuroscientist, 14, 319-325. doi:10.1177/ 1073858408317417
5. 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/Psychologische Forschung, 74, 359-369. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0256-9
6. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding: A framework for perception and action. Behav-ioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X01000103
7. 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
8. Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1067-1082. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1067
9. Jahanshahi, M., Jenkins, I. H., Brown, R. G., Marsden, C. D., Passingham, R. E., & Brooks, D. J. (1995). Self-initiated versus externally triggered movements. I. An investigation using measurement of regional cerebral blood flow with PET and movement-related potentials in normal and Parkinson's disease subjects. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 118, 913-933. doi:10.1093/brain/118.4.913
10. Janczyk, M., Skirde, S., Weigelt, M., & Kunde, W. (2009). Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance. Human Movement Science, 28, 437-449. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2009 .02.006
11. Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Variable action effects: Response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research/ Psychologische Forschung, 68, 155-162. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0152-7
12. Kunde, W., Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (in press). The locus of tool-transformation costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-ception and Performance. doi:10.1037/a0026315
13. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-Effect compatibility in manual choice reac-tion tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387-394. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387
14. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2004). Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli. Psychological Research, 68, 199-207. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0156-3
15. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490. doi:10.3758/BF03210951
16. Miller, J. (1989). The control of attention by abrupt visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 567-571. doi:10.3758/ BF03208064
17. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861-872. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.861
18. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125-129. doi: 10.3758/BF03210785
19. Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect percep-tual processing? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 54, 137-154.
20. Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.) Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 520-537). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., Danielmeier, C., & Zysset, S. (2005). Action-induced blindness with lateralized stimuli and responses. Experimental Brain Research, 160, 214-222. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2009-8
22. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2010). Effector identity and orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility in blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Psychological Research/Psycholgische Forschung, 74, 172-181. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0228-0
23. Obhi, S. S., & Haggard, P. (2004). Internally generated and externally triggered actions are physically distinct and independently controlled. Experimental Brain Research, 156, 518-523. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-1911-4
24. Obhi, S. S., Matkovich, S., & Chen, R. (2009). Changing the "when" and "what" of intended actions. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102, 2755-2762. doi:10.1152/jn.00336.2009
25. Obhi, S. S., Matkovich, S., & Gilbert, S. (2009). Modification of planned actions. Experimental Brain Research, 192, 265-274. doi:10.1007/ s00221-008-1584-5
26. Oriet, C., Stevanovski, B., & Jolicoeur, P. (2007). Feature binding and episodic retrieval in blindness for congruent stimuli: Evidence from analyses of sequential congruency. Psychological Research/Psycholgis-che Forschung, 71, 30-41. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0034-2
27. Paelecke, M., & Kunde, W. (2007). Action-Effect Codes in and before the Central Bottleneck: Evidence from the PRP Paradigm. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 627-644. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.627
28. 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
29. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (in press). Harleß' apparatus of will: 150 years later. Psychological Research. doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0362-3
30. Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomo-tor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 316-322. doi:10.1016/ j.actpsy.2010.08.006
31. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154. doi:10.1080/713752551
32. Rowe, J. B., Hughes, L., & Nimmo-Smith, L. (2010). Action selection: A race model for selected and non-selected actions distinguishes the con-tribution of premotor and prefrontal areas. NeuroImage, 51, 888-896. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.045
33. Sanders, A. F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61955-X
34. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-mance, 29, 431-440. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.431
35. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2006). Symbolic-and response-related contributions to blindness to compatible stimuli. Visual Cogni-tion, 14, 326-350. doi:10.1080/13506280500296470
36. Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-ception and Performance, 25, 1625-1640. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1625
37. Thomaschke, R., Hopkins, B., & Miall, R. C. (in press). The role of cue-response mapping in motorvisual impairment and facilitation: Evi-dence for different roles of actoin planning and action control in motor-visual dual-task priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi:10.1037/a0024794
38. Wiediger, M. D., & Fournier, L. R. (2008). An action sequence withheld in memory can delay execution of visually guided actions: The general-ization of response compatibility interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1136-1149. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1136
39. Wiese, H., Stude, P., Nebel, K., de Greiff, A., Forsting, M., Diener, H. C.,...Keidel, M. (2004). Movement preparation in self-initiated versus externally triggered movements: An event-related fMRI-study. Neuroscience Letters, 371, 220-225. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.08.078
40. Wühr, P. (2006). Response preparation modulates interference from irrel-evant spatial information. Acta Psychologica, 122, 206-220. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.12.011
41. 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