Psychological Research PRPF

, Volume 74, Issue 4, pp 359–369 | Cite as

Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response

  • Lisa Renee Fournier
  • Matthew D. Wiediger
  • Ryan McMeans
  • Paul S. Mattson
  • Joy Kirkwood
  • Theibot Herzog
Original Article

Abstract

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).

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gathrecole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001b). Codes and their vicissitudes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 910–937.Google Scholar
  7. Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Kinsbourne, M., & Cook, J. (1971). Generalized and lateralized effects of concurrent verbalization on unimanual skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer, D. E., & Gordon, P. C. (1985). Speech production: Motor programming of phonetic features. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 861–872.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 125–129.Google Scholar
  16. Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2000). Can actions effect perceptual processing? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1–17.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  18. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support processor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826–842.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Pashler, H., & Obrien, S. (1993). Dual-task interference and the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 315–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wühr, P. (2006). The Simon effect in vocal responses. Acta Psychological, 121, 210–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Renee Fournier
    • 1
  • Matthew D. Wiediger
    • 1
  • Ryan McMeans
    • 1
  • Paul S. Mattson
    • 1
  • Joy Kirkwood
    • 1
  • Theibot Herzog
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations