Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 817–822 | Cite as

Joint response–effect compatibility

  • Roland Pfister
  • Thomas Dolk
  • Wolfgang Prinz
  • Wilfried Kunde
Brief Report

Abstract

When performing jointly on a task, human agents are assumed to represent their coactor’s share of this task, and research in various joint action paradigms has focused on representing the coactor’s stimulus–response assignments. Here we show that the response–effect (R–E) contingencies exploited by a coactor also affect performance, and thus might be represented as if they were used by oneself. Participants performed an R–E compatibility task, with keypresses producing spatially compatible or incompatible action effects. We did not observe any R–E compatibility effects when the task was performed in isolation (individual go–no-go). By contrast, small but reliable R–E compatibility effects emerged when the same task was performed in a joint setting. These results indicate that the knowledge of a coactor’s R–E contingencies can influence whether self-produced action effects are used for one’s own motor control.

Keywords

Joint action Motor control Action effects R–E compatibility 

References

  1. Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109, 285–299. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00062-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: Sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2709-9 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3, 410–420. doi:10.1080/17470910801900908 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becchio, C., Sartori, L., & Castiello, U. (2010). Towards you: The social side of actions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2012). Effects of a coactor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1404–1415. doi:10.1037/a0027523 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0524-z Google Scholar
  8. Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013a). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi:10.1037/a0031031 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Fiehler, K. (2013b). Visual experience determines the use of external reference frames in joint action control. PLoS ONE, 8, e59008. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059008 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2012). Instructed task demands and utilization of action effect anticipation. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 578.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guagnano, D., Rusconia, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. He, X., Lever, A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2011). Interpersonal memory-based guidance of attention is reduced for ingroup members. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 429–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279. doi:10.1007/BF00419687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Humphreys, G. W., & Bedford, J. (2011). The relations between joint action and theory of mind: A neuropsychological analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 357–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Crognale, M. A., & Kunde, W. (2012). Effective rotations: Action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 489–501. doi:10.1037/a0026997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2012). On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Journal of Psychology, 220, 16–22.Google Scholar
  21. Kiernan, D., Ray, M., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 914–920. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0283-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 59–101). Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2008). Evolving intentions for social interaction: From entrainment to joint action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 2021–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.855 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunde, W. (2001). Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response–effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67, 153–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novembre, G., Ticini, L. F., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Keller, P. E. (2012). Distinguishing self and other in joint action: Evidence from a musical paradigm. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2894–2903. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr364 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paulus, M., van Dam, W., Hunnius, S., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2011). Action–effect binding by observational learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1022–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate: Anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797613489139
  33. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x
  34. Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 316–322. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2013). Dissecting the response in response–effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 647–655. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3343-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfister, R., Pfeuffer, C., & Kunde, W. (2013). Perceiving by proxy: Effect-based action control with unperceivable effects. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  37. Prinz, W. (1990). A common-coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson, D. C., Street, C. N. H., Tan, J. Y. M., Kirkham, N. Z., Hoover, M. A., & Cavanaugh, A. G. (2012). Joint perception: Gaze and social context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 194.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shin, Y. K., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Testing boundary conditions of the ideomotor hypothesis using a delayed response task. Acta Psychologica, 141, 360–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176. doi:10.1037/h0027448 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tlauka, M., & McKenna, F. P. (1998). Mental imagery yields spatial stimulus–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 98, 67–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Welsh, T. N., Elliott, D., Anson, J. G., Dhillon, V., Weeks, D. J., Lyons, J. L., & Chua, R. (2005). Does Joe influence Fred’s action? Inhibition of return across different nervous systems. Neuroscience Letters, 385, 99–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Welsh, T. N., Lyons, J., Weeks, D. J., Anson, J. G., Chua, R., Mendoza, J., & Elliott, D. (2007). Within- and between-nervous-system inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 950–956. doi:10.3758/BF03194127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Pfister
    • 1
    • 3
  • Thomas Dolk
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Prinz
    • 2
  • Wilfried Kunde
    • 1
  1. 1.Julius Maximilians University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMax-Planck-Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department of Psychology IIIJulius Maximilians University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations