Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control

Psychological Research

Volumn 77, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 249-259

  Memelink, Jiska ^a   Hommel, Bernhard ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876191637     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
3. Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13, 70-74.
4. 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.
5. DeYoe, E. A., & van Essen, D. C. (1988). Concurrent processing streams in monkey visual cortex. Trends in Neuroscience, 11, 219-226.
6. Dixon, P. (1981). Algorithms and selective attention. Memory and Cognition, 9, 177-184.
7. Dixon, P., & Just, M. A. (1986). A chronometric analysis of strategy preparation in choice reactions. Memory and Cognition, 14, 488-500.
8. Donders, F. C. (1869). On the speed of mental processes [translated and reprinted in Acta Psychologica (1969), 30, 412-431].
9. Fagioli, S., Ferlazzo, F., & Hommel, B. (2007a). Controlling attention through action: Observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Neuropsychologia, 14, 3351-3355.
10. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007b). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71, 22-29.
11. Found, A., & Müller, H. J. (1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a "dimension-weighting" account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 88-101.
12. Hamilton, A., Joyce, D. W., Flanagan, R., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (2007). Kinematic cues in perceptual weight judgment and their origins in box lifting. Psychological Research, 71, 13-21.
13. Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person's action. Current Biology, 14, 493-498.
14. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.
15. Hommel, B. (2002). Responding to object files: Automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus-response compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 567-580.
16. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.
17. Hommel, B. (2005). Perception in action: Multiple roles of sensory information in action control. Cognitive Processing, 6, 3-14.
18. Hommel, B. (2007). Feature integration across perception and action: Event files affect response choice. Psychological Research, 71, 42-63.
19. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512-526.
20. 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: MIT Press.
21. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189-202.
22. Hommel, B., & Müsseler, J. (2006). Action-feature integration blinds to feature-overlapping perceptual events: Evidence from manual and vocal actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 509-523.
23. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001a). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-937.
24. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001b). Codes and their vicissitudes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 910-937.
25. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications.
26. Kieffaber, P. D., Kruschke, J. K., Walker, P. M., & Hetrick, W. P. (2012). The contributions of stimulus- and response-set to control and conflict in task-set switching (submitted).
27. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Phillip, A., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching-A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849-874.
28. Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12, 467-472.
29. Lotze, R. H. (1852). Medicinische Psychologie oder die Physiologie der Seele. Leipzig: Weidmann'sche Buchhandlung.
30. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
31. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
32. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
33. Meiran, N., Hommel, B., Bibi, U., & Lev, I. (2002). Consciousness and control in task switching. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 10-33.
34. Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2005). Attention, instruction, and response representation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 674-685.
35. Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2006). Tailoring perception and action to the task at hand. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 579-592.
36. Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2007). Repetition costs in word identification: Evaluating a stimulus-response integration account. Psychological Research, 71, 64-76.
37. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
38. Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (Eds.). (2000). Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
39. Müller, H. J., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1-17.
40. Müller, H. J., Reimann, B., & Krummenacher, J. (2003). Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus- and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1021-1035.
41. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125-129.
42. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861-872.
43. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. In R. J. Davison, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4, pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum.
44. 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, 71, 30-41.
45. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1998). Does pizza prime coin? Perceptual priming in lexical decision and pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 401-418.
46. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
47. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. Berlin: Springer.
48. Proctor, R. W., Koch, I., Vu, K. P. L., & Yamaguchi, M. (2008). Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: Dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects. Memory & Cognition, 36, 998-1012.
49. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110-122.
50. Rangelov, D., Müller, H. J., & Zehetleitner, M. (2012). The multiple-weighting-systems hypothesis: Theory and empirical support. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics (in press).
51. 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.
52. Schubotz, R. I., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001). Functional organization of the lateral premotor cortex: fMRI reveals different regions activated by anticipation of object properties, location and speed. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 97-112.
53. Schubotz, R. I., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Predicting perceptual events activates corresponding motor schemes in lateral premotor cortex: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 15, 787-796.
54. Schubotz, R. I., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2003). Functional-anatomical concepts of human premotor cortex: Evidence from fMRI and PET studies. Neuroimage, 20, S120-S131.
55. Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 349-355.
56. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
57. Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943-974.
58. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
59. 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.
60. Theeuwes, J., Reimann, B., & Mortier, K. (2006). Visual search for featural singletons: No top-down modulation, only bottom-up priming. Visual Cognition, 14, 466-489.
61. Treisman, A. (1999). Feature binding, attention and object perception. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.), Attention space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 91-112). New York: Oxford University Press.
62. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
63. Weidner, R., & Müller, H. J. (2009). Dimensional weighting of primary and secondary target-defining dimensions in visual search for singleton conjunction targets. Psychological Research, 73, 198-211.
64. Wickens, J., Hyland, B., & Anson, G. (1994). Cortical cell assemblies: a possible mechanism for motor programs. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 66-82.
65. Wohlschläger, A. (2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40, 925-930.
66. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2. 0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
67. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided Search: An Alternative to the Feature Integration Model for Visual Search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419-433.
68. 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.
69. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Review. Epub ahead of print retrieved January 9, 2012 (in press).
70. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 455-469.