Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Holding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) feature. This compatibility interference (CI) occurs for actions that share the same response modality (e.g., manual response). We investigated whether CI can generalize to actions that utilize different response modalities (manual and vocal). In three experiments, participants planned and withheld a sequence of key-presses with the left- or right-hand based on the visual identity of the first stimulus, and then immediately executed a speeded, vocal response (‘left’ or ‘right’) to a second visual stimulus. The vocal response was based on discriminating stimulus color (Experiment 1), reading a written word (Experiment 2), or reporting the antonym of a written word (Experiment 3). Results showed that CI occurred when the manual response hand (e.g., left) was compatible with the identity of the vocal response (e.g., ‘left’) in Experiment 1 and 3, but not in Experiment 2. This suggests that partial overlap of semantic codes is sufficient to obtain CI unless the intervening action can be accessed automatically (Experiment 2). These findings are consistent with the code occupation hypothesis and the general framework of the theory of event coding (Behav Brain Sci 24:849–878, 2001a; Behav Brain Sci 24:910–937, 2001b).
Supplementary Material (0)
- Fournier, L. R., Kirkwood, J., Mattson, P., & Herzog, T. (in preparation). Actions are delayed if they share a feature with an action plan held in working memory regardless of their mental representations.
- Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609. CrossRef
- Gathrecole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
- 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. CrossRef
- 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, 849–878. CrossRef
- Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001b). Codes and their vicissitudes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 910–937.
- Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
- Keele, S., Cohen, A., & Ivry, R. (1990). Motor programs: Concepts and issues. In M. Jeanerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII: Motor representation and control (pp. 77–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Kinsbourne, M., & Cook, J. (1971). Generalized and lateralized effects of concurrent verbalization on unimanual skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 341–345. CrossRef
- Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855–875. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Meyer, D. E., & Gordon, P. C. (1985). Speech production: Motor programming of phonetic features. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 3–26. CrossRef
- Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: the effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115, 123–142. CrossRef
- Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 861–872.
- Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 125–129.
- Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2000). Can actions effect perceptual processing? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1–17.
- Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-envoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance, XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 521–537). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743–767. CrossRef
- Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support processor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826–842. CrossRef
- Pashler, H. & Christian, C. L. (1994). Bottlenecks in planning and producing vocal, manual and foot responses. Center for Human Information Processing Technical Report, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
- Pashler, H., & Obrien, S. (1993). Dual-task interference and the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 315–330. CrossRef
- Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer.
- Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154. CrossRef
- Sakata, H., Taira, M., Murata, A., & Mine, S. (1995). Neural mechanisms of visual guidance of hand actions in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 429–438. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance, XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 538–552). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Taira, M., Mine, S., Georgopoulos, A. P., Mutara, A., & Sakata, H. (1990). Parietal cortex neurons of the monkey related to the visual guidance of hand movements. Experimental Brain Research, 83, 29–36. CrossRef
- Wiediger, M., & 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 & Performance, 34(5), 1136–1149. CrossRef
- Wühr, P. (2006). The Simon effect in vocal responses. Acta Psychological, 121, 210–226. CrossRef
- Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260–1270. CrossRef
About this Article
- Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response
Psychological Research PRPF
Volume 74, Issue 4 , pp 359-369
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links