Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 61–65 | Cite as

Learning at any rate: action–effect learning for stimulus-based actions

  • Roland Pfister
  • Andrea Kiesel
  • Joachim Hoffmann
Original Article

Abstract

Recent studies reported converging evidence for action–effect associations if participants adopted an intention-based action control mode in free choice conditions, whereas no evidence for action–effect associations was found when participants adopted a stimulus-based mode in forced choice conditions. However, it is not yet clear whether action control modes moderate acquisition or usage of action–effect associations. In the present experiment, two groups of participants underwent an acquisition phase consisting of either free or forced choice key presses that produced irrelevant, but contingent effect tones. In a subsequent test phase, participants freely chose the key to press after former effect tones were presented. A reliable consistency effect resulted for both the groups, i.e. participants preferred the key that produced the irrelevant tone in the preceding acquisition phase. In combination with prior findings, this consistency effect suggests that usage, but not acquisition of action–effect associations depends on an intention-based action control mode.

Keywords

Test Phase Free Choice Effect Compatibility Forced Choice Acquisition Phase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ach, N. (1935). Analyse des Willens [Analysis of the Will]. Berlin: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
  2. Dutzi, I. B., & Hommel, B. (2009). The microgenesis of action–effect binding. Psychological Research, 73, 425–435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Herbart, J. F. (1825). Psychologie als Wissenschaft neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik [Psychology as a science newly founded on experience, metaphysics, and mathematics]. Königsberg: August Wilhelm Unzer.Google Scholar
  6. Herwig, A., Prinz, W., & Waszak, F. (2007). Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1540–1554.Google Scholar
  7. Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227.Google Scholar
  8. Hoffmann, J., Berner, M., Butz, M. V., Herbort, O., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., et al. (2007). Explorations of anticipatory behavioral control (ABC): A report from the cognitive psychology unit of the University of Würzburg. Cognitive Processing, 8, 133–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoffmann, J., Lenhard, A., Sebald, A., & Pfister, R. (2009). Movements or targets: What makes an action in action effect learning? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2433–2449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stöcker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in serial reaction time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 470–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel, B., Alonso, D., & Fuentes, L. J. (2003). Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Visual Cognition, 10, 965–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller, P. E., Wascher, E., Prinz, W., Waszak, F., Koch, I., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2006). Differences between intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Journal of Psychophysiology, 20, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Variable action effects: Response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research, 68, 155–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kühn, S., Elsner, B., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2009). Busy doing nothing: Evidence for non action–effect binding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kunde, W. (2001). Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response–effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67, 153–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kunde, W., Elsner, K., & Kiesel, A. (2007). No anticipation-no action: The role of anticipation in action and perception. Cognitive Processing, 8, 71–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation and execution of actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maes, J. H. (2006). Response bias induces in rats by response effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1346–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prinz, W. (1998). Die Reaktion als Willenshandlung. Psychologische Rundschau, 49, 10–20.Google Scholar
  23. Stock, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2002). Intentional fixation of behavioural learning, or how R–O learning blocks S–R learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wenke, D., Waszak, F., & Haggard, P. (2009). Action selection and action awareness. Psychological Research, 73, 602–612.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ziessler, M. (1998). Response–effect learning as a major component of implicit serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 962–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Pfister
    • 1
  • Andrea Kiesel
    • 1
  • Joachim Hoffmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations