Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 8, pp 2263–2275 | Cite as

Free choice tasks as random generation tasks: an investigation through working memory manipulations

  • Christoph Naefgen
  • Markus Janczyk
Research Article

Abstract

Free choice tasks are tasks in which two or more equally valid response options per stimulus exist from which participants can choose. In investigations of the putative difference between self-generated and externally triggered actions, they are often contrasted with forced choice tasks, in which only one response option is considered correct. Usually, responses in free choice tasks are slower when compared with forced choice task responses, which may point to a qualitative difference in response selection. It was, however, also suggested that free choice tasks are in fact random generation tasks. Here, we tested the prediction that in this case, randomness of the free choice responses depends on working memory (WM) load. In Experiment 1, participants were provided with varying levels of external WM support in the form of displayed previous choices. In Experiment 2, WM load was induced via a concurrent n-back task. The data generally confirm the prediction: in Experiment 1, WM support improved both randomness and speed of responses. In Experiment 2, randomness decreased and responses slowed down with increasing WM load. These results suggest that free choice tasks have much in common with random generation tasks.

Keywords

Free choice Forced choice Action selection Working memory Random generation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; German Research Foundation), grant JA 2307/1–2 awarded to Markus Janczyk. Work of MJ is further supported by the Institutional Strategy of the University of Tübingen (DFG ZUK 63). We thank Davood Gozli for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. In addition, Cosima Schneider and Moritz Durst provided valuable feedback that improved this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Azouvi P, Jokic C, Der Linden MV et al (1996) Working memory and supervisory control after severe closed-head injury. A study of dual task performance and random generation. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 18:317–337.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639608408990 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley AD (1962). Some factors influencing the generation of random letter sequences. Med Res Council Appl Psychol Unit Rep. 422/62Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley AD (1966) The capacity for generating information by randomization. Q J Exp Psychol 18:119–129.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746608400019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bausenhart KM, Rolke B, Seibold VC, Ulrich R (2010) Temporal preparation influences the dynamics of information processing: evidence for early onset of information accumulation. Vis Res 50:1025–1034.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.03.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlyne DE (1957) Conflict and choice time. Br J Psychol 48:106–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1957.tb00606.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bermeitinger C, Hackländer RP (2018) Response priming with motion primes: negative compatibility or congruency effects, even in free-choice trials. Cogn Process.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0858-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brass M, Haggard P (2008) The what, when, whether model of intentional action. Neurosci 14:319–325.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858408317417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper RP, Karolina W, Davelaar EJ (2012) Differential contributions of set-shifting and monitoring to dual-task interference. Q J Exp Psychol 63: 587–612Google Scholar
  9. Dror IE, Basola B, Busemeyer JR (1999) Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models. Mem Cognit 27:713–725.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211564 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebert JP, Wegner DM (2011) Mistaking randomness for free will. Conscious Cogn 20:965–971.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.12.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Elsner B, Hommel B (2001) Effect anticipation and action control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:229–240.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Frith C (2013) The psychology of volition. Exp Brain Res 229:289–299.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3407-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaschler R, Nattkemper D (2012) Instructed task demands and utilization of action effect anticipation. Front Psychol 3:.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00578
  14. Gozli DG, Huffman G, Pratt J (2016) Acting and anticipating: Impact of outcome-compatible distractor depends on response selection efficiency. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42:1601–1614.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000238 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Grice GR (1968) Stimulus intensity and response evocation. Psychol Rev 75:359–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hadland KA, Rushworth MFS, Passingham RE et al (2001) Interference with performance of a response selection task that has no working memory component: an rTMS comparison of the dorsolateral prefrontal and medial frontal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 13:1097–1108.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892901753294392 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Herwig A, Waszak F (2009) Short article: intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Q J Exp Psychol 62:219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802373290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herwig A, Waszak F (2012) Action-effect bindings and ideomotor learning in intention- and stimulus-based actions. Front Psychol 3.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00444
  19. Herwig A, Prinz W, Waszak F (2007) Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Q J Exp Psychol 60:1540–1554.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601119134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heuer H, Kohlisch O, Klein W (2005) The effects of total sleep deprivation on the generation of random sequences of key-presses, numbers and nouns. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 58:275–307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heuer H, Janczyk M, Kunde W (2010) Random noun generation in younger and older adults. Q J Exp Psychol 63:465–478.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902974138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huffman G, Gozli DG, Hommel B, Pratt J (2018) Response preparation, response selection difficulty, and response-outcome learning. Psychol Res 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0989-4
  23. Jahanshahi M, Dirnberger G, Fuller R, Frith CD (2000) The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in random number generation: a study with positron emission tomography. NeuroImage 12:713–725.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0647 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Janczyk M, Lerche V (2018) A diffusion model analysis of the response-effect compatibility effect. J Exp Psychol Gen.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000430 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janczyk M, Pfister R, Kunde W (2012a) On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Z Für Psychol 220:16–22.  https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janczyk M, Pfister R, Crognale MA, Kunde W (2012b) Effective rotations: Action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. J Exp Psychol Gen 141:489–501.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026997 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Janczyk M, Pfister R, Hommel B, Kunde W (2014) Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition 132:30–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Janczyk M, Nolden S, Jolicoeur P (2015a) No differences in dual-task costs between forced- and free-choice tasks. Psychol Res 79:463–477.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0580-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Janczyk M, Dambacher M, Bieleke M, Gollwitzer PM (2015b) The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing. Psychol Res 79:206–220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0549-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Janczyk M, Durst M, Ulrich R (2017) Action selection by temporally distal goal states. Psychon Bull Rev 24:467–473.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1096-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins IH, Jahanshahi M, Jueptner M et al (2000) Self-initiated versus externally triggered movements. II. The effect of movement predictability on regional cerebral blood flow. Brain J Neurol 123:1216–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller PE, Wascher E, Prinz W et al (2006) Differences between intention-based and stimulus-based actions. J Psychophysiol 20:9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803.20.1.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirchner WK (1958) Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol 55:352–358.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043688 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Koch I, Kunde W (2002) Verbal response-effect compatibility. Mem Cogn 30:1297–1303.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kühn S, Elsner B, Prinz W, Brass M (2009) Busy doing nothing: Evidence for nonaction-effect binding. Psychon Bull Rev 16:542–549.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.542 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kunde W (2001) Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:387–394.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kunde W, Pfister R, Janczyk M (2012) The locus of tool-transformation costs. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38:703–714.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026315 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Linser K, Goschke T (2007) Unconscious modulation of the conscious experience of voluntary control. Cognition 104:459–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Loftus GR, Masson ME (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev 1:476–490.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210951 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin-Löf P (1966) The definition of random sequences. Inf Control 9:602–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(66)80018-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ et al (2000) The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognit Psychol 41:49–100.  https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Naefgen C, Dambacher M, Janczyk M (2017) Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations. Psychol Res 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0887-1
  43. Passingham RE, Bengtsson SL, Lau HC (2010) Medial frontal cortex: from self-generated action to reflection on one’s own performance. Trends Cogn Sci 14:16–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.11.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Pfister R, Kunde W (2013) Dissecting the response in response–effect compatibility. Exp Brain Res 224:647–655.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3343-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pfister R, Kiesel A, Melcher T (2010) Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychol (Amst) 135:316–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pfister R, Kiesel A, Hoffmann J (2011) Learning at any rate: action–effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychol Res 75:61–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0288-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rescher N (2005) Cosmos and Logos: Studies in Greek Philosophy. Ontos VerlagGoogle Scholar
  48. Schüür F, Haggard P (2011) What are self-generated actions? Conscious Cogn 20:1697–1704.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Towse JN, Neil D (1998) Analyzing human random generation behavior: a review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 30:583–591.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waszak F, Wascher E, Keller P et al (2005) Intention-based and stimulus-based mechanisms in action selection. Exp Brain Res 162:346–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-2183-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wirth R, Janczyk M, Kunde W (2018) Effect monitoring in dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 44:553–571.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000474 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolfensteller U, Ruge H (2011) On the timescale of stimulus-based action–effect learning. Q J Exp Psychol 64:1273–1289.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.546417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyEberhard Karls University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations