Dissecting the response in response–effect compatibility
Voluntary actions are guided by sensory anticipations of body-related as well as environment-related action effects. Even though action effects in the environment typically resemble the action goal proper, anticipations of body-related effects can cause interference if they do not correspond to intended environment-related effects. The present study explored which specific response features cause such interference: the spatial location of the moving limb or its anatomical connection to the body causes such interference? Using a response–effect compatibility design with normal and crossed hand-key mappings, we show that environment-related effects are predominantly related to spatial rather than anatomical response features, ensuring that goal-directed behavior is flexible and efficient at the same time. Furthermore, results indicate that this mechanism applies to both, free- and forced-choice actions.
KeywordsAction control Effect anticipations Spatial versus anatomical codes Ideomotor theory
- Heister G, Schröder-Heister P, Ehrenstein WH (1990) Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In: Proctor RW, Reeve TG (eds) Stimulus-response compatibility: an integrated perspective. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 117–143Google Scholar
- James W (1890/1981) The principles of psychology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Janczyk M, Pfister R, Kunde W (2012a) On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. J Psychol 220:16–22Google Scholar
- Memelink J, Hommel B (2012) Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychol Res. doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
- Ticini LF, Schütz-Bosbach S, Weiss C, Casile A, Waszak F (2012) When sounds become actions: higher-order representation of newly learnt action sounds in the human motor system. J Cogn Neurosci 24(2):464–474Google Scholar