Perceiving by proxy: Effect-based action control with unperceivable effects

Cognition

Volumn 132, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 251-261

  Pfister, Roland ^a   Pfeuffer, Christina U ^a   Kunde, Wilfried ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Action effects; Empathy; Ideomotor theory; Imagery; Instruction; Sensory anticipations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTICIPATION; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMOTION; EMPATHY; EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGERY; IMAGINATION; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; MENTAL FUNCTION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROXY; RESPONSE TIME; SENSATION; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SOCIAL STATUS; HUMANS; INTENTION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; INTENTION; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84900866454     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.012     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Adriaanse M.A., Gollwitzer P.M., de Ridder D.T.D., de Wit J.B.F., Kroese F.M. Breaking habits with implementation intentions: A test of underlying processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2011, 37(4):502-513.
2. Ansorge U. Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica 2002, 109:285-299.
3. Badets A., Koch I., Toussaint L. Role of an ideomotor mechanism in number processing. Experimental Psychology 2013, 60(1):34-43.
4. Batson C.D., Early S., Salvarani G. Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1997, 23(7):751-758.
5. Becchio C., Sartori L., Castiello U. Towards you: The social side of actions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2010, 19:183-188.
6. Borst G., Kosslyn S.M. Visual mental imagery and visual perception: Structural equivalence revealed by scanning processes. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36(4):849-862.
7. Cohen-Kdoshay O., Meiran N. The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60(8):1140-1154.
8. Cohen-Kdoshay O., Meiran N. The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: Flanker compatibility effects found in the first trial following S-R instructions. Experimental Psychology 2009, 56(2):128-133.
9. Cui X., Jeter C.B., Yang D., Montague P.R., Eagleman D.M. Vividness of mental imagery: Individual variability can be measured objectively. Vision Research 2007, 47:474-478.
10. Decety J., Jackson P.L. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 2004, 3(2):71-100.
11. Dolk T., Hommel B., Prinz W., Liepelt R. The (not so) Social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2013, 39(5):1248-1260.
12. Dolk T., Hommel B., Colzato L.S., Schütz-Bosbach S., Prinz W., Liepelt R. How "social" is the social Simon effect?. Frontiers in Psychology 2011, 2(84). 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.
13. Eenshuistra R.M., Weidema M.A., Hommel B. Development of the acquisition and control of action-effect associations. Acta Psychologica 2004, 115:185-209.
14. Elsner B., Hommel B. Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:229-240.
15. Elsner B., Hommel B. Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research 2004, 68:138-154.
16. Ganis G., Thompson W.L., Kosslyn S.M. Brain areas underlying visual mental imagery and visual perception: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 20:226-241.
17. Gonzalez D.A., Studenka B.E., Glazebrook C.M., Lyons J.L. Extending end-state comfort effect: Do we consider the beginning state comfort of another?. Acta Psychologica 2011, 136:347-353.
18. Halpern A.R., Zatorre R.J. When that tune runs through your head: A PET investigation of auditory imagery for familiar melodies. Cerebral Cortex 1999, 9(7):697-704.
19. Hauf P., Elsner B., Aschersleben G. The role of action effects in infants' action control. Psychological Research 2004, 68(2-3):115-125.
20. Herwig A., Prinz W., Waszak F. Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:1540-1554.
21. Hoffmann J., Lenhard A., Sebald A., Pfister R. Movements or targets: What makes an action in action effect learning?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:2433-2449.
22. Hommel B., Müsseler J., Aschersleben G., Prinz W. The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:849-937.
23. Hubbard J., Gazzaley A., Morsella E. Traditional response interference effects from anticipated action outcomes: A response-effect compatibility paradigm. Acta Psychologica 2011, 138:106-110.
24. Janczyk M., Pfister R., Kunde W. On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Journal of Psychology 2012, 220:16-22.
25. Keysers C., Wicker B., Gazzola V., Anton J.L., Fogassi L., Gallese V. A touching sight: SII/PV activation during the observation and experience of touch. Neuron 2004, 42:335-346.
26. Kiernan D., Ray M., Welsh T.N. Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19:914-920.
27. Kiesel A., Hoffmann J. Variable action effects: Response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research 2004, 68:155-162.
28. Koch I., Kunde W. Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:1297-1303.
29. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 1990, 97:253-270.
30. Kosslyn S.M. Image and brain. Resolution of the imagery debate 1994, MIT Press, London, UK.
31. Kosslyn S.M., Alpert N.M., Thompson W.L., Maljkovic V., Weise S.B., Chabris C.F., et al. Visual mental imagery activates topographically organized visual cortex: PET investigations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1993, 5:263-287.
32. Kunde W. Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:387-394.
33. Kunde W. Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research 2003, 67:153-159.
34. Kunde W., Kiesel A., Hoffmann J. Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition 2003, 88(2):223-242.
35. Kunde W., Pfister R., Janczyk M. The locus of tool-transformation costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2012, 38:703-714.
36. Liefooghe B., Wenke D., De Houwer J. Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2012, 38(5):1325-1335.
37. Paulus M., van Dam W., Hunnius S., Lindemann O., Bekkering H. Action-effect binding by observational learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18(5):1022-1028.
38. Pfister R., Dignath D., Hommel B., Kunde W. It takes two to imitate: Anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science 2013, 24(10):2117-2121.
39. Pfister, R., Dolk, T., Prinz, W., & Kunde, W. (2014). Joint response-effect compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi: (in press). doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0528-7.
40. Pfister R., Janczyk M. Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 2013, 9(2):74-80.
41. Pfister R., Kiesel A., Hoffmann J. Learning at any rate: Action-effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research 2011, 75:61-65.
42. Pfister R., Kiesel A., Melcher T. Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica 2010, 135(3):316-322.
43. Pfister R., Kunde W. Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research 2013, 224(4):647-655.
44. Preston S.D., de Waal F.B.M. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2002, 25:1-72.
45. Prinz W. Why don't we perceive our brain states?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 1992, 4:1-20.
46. Prinz W. Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 1997, 9:129-154.
47. Ray M., Welsh T.N. Response selection during a joint action task. Journal of Motor Behavior 2011, 43(4):329-332.
48. Rieger M. Letters as visual action-effects in skilled typing. Acta Psychologica 2007, 126:138-153.
49. Royzman E.B., Cassidy K.W., Baron J. "I know you know": Epistemic egocentrism in children and adults. Review of General Psychology 2003, 7(1):38-65.
50. Sato A., Itakura S. Intersubjective action-effect binding: Eye contact modulates acquisition of bidirectional association between our and others' actions. Cognition 2013, 127(3):383-390.
51. Schaefer M., Xu B., Flor H., Cohen L.G. Effects of different viewing perspectives on somatosensory activations during observation of touch. Human Brain Mapping 2009, 30:2722-2730.
52. Sebanz N., Knoblich G., Prinz W. Representing others' actions: Just like one's own?. Cognition 2003, 88:B11-B21.
53. Shin Y.K., Proctor R., Capaldi E.J. A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Review 2010, 136:943-974.
54. Singer T. The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2006, 30(6):855-863.
55. Singer T., Lamm C. The social neuroscience of empathy. The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience 2009: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009, 1156:81-96.
56. Sonnby-Borgström M. Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in emotional empathy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2002, 43(5):433-443.
57. Stenzel A., Chinellato E., Bou M.A., del Pobil Á.P., Lappe M., Liepelt R. When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2012, 38(5):1073-1077.
58. Tlauka M., McKenna F.P. Mental imagery yields spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica 1998, 98:67-79.
59. Verschoor S.A., Spapé M., Biro S., Hommel B. From outcome prediction to action selection: Developmental change in the role of action-effect bindings. Developmental Science 2013, 16(6):801-814.
60. Verschoor S.A., Weidema M., Biro S., Hommel B. Where do action goals come from? Evidence for spontaneous action-effect binding in infants. Frontiers in Psychology 2010, 1:201.
61. Waszak F., Pfister R., Kiesel A. Top-down vs. bottom-up: When instructions overcome automatic retrieval. Psychological Research 2013, 77(5):611-617.
62. Wenke D., Gaschler R., Nattkemper D. Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research 2007, 71(1):92-106.
63. Wicker B., Keysers C., Plailly J., Royet J.P., Gallese V., Rizzolatti G. Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 2003, 40:655-664.
64. Wolfensteller U., Ruge H. On the timescale of stimulus-based action-effect learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2011, 64:1273-1289.