Show simple item record

2012-12-31Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00585
The Activation of Effect Codes in Response Preparation: New Evidence from an Indirect Priming Paradigm
dc.contributor.authorZiessler, Michael
dc.contributor.authorNattkemper, Dieter
dc.contributor.authorVogt, Stefan
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-19T12:31:39Z
dc.date.available2020-02-19T12:31:39Z
dc.date.issued2012-12-31none
dc.date.updated2019-10-23T15:29:02Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://edoc.hu-berlin.de/18452/21900
dc.description.abstractEvidence for the anticipation of environmental effects as an integral part of response planning comes mainly from experiments in which the effects were physically presented. Thus, in these studies it cannot be excluded that effect codes were activated during response preparation only because the effects were displayed as external stimuli before response execution. In order to provide more clear-cut evidence for the anticipation of response effects in action planning, we performed a series of three experiments using a new paradigm, where displaying effect codes before the response was avoided. Participants first learned arbitrary effects of key-pressing responses. In the following test phase they were instructed to execute a response only if a Go stimulus was presented after a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). The Go stimulus was either compatible or incompatible with the effect, but independent of the response. In Experiment 1 we tested the paradigm with two responses and two effects. We found a significant compatibility effect: If the Go stimulus was compatible with the response effect, responses were initiated faster than in incompatible trials. In Experiment 2 response effects were only present in the acquisition phase, but not in the test phase. The compatibility effect disappeared, indicating that the results of Experiment 1 were indeed related to the anticipation of the forthcoming response effects. In Experiment 3 we extended this paradigm by using a larger number of stimuli and response alternatives. Again we found a robust compatibility effect, which can only be explained if the effect representations are active before response execution. The compatibility effects in Experiments 1 and 3 did not depend on the SOA. The fact that the Go stimulus affected response preparation at any time indicates that the role of effect anticipation is not limited to response selection.eng
dc.language.isoengnone
dc.publisherHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin
dc.rights(CC BY 3.0) Attribution 3.0 Unportedger
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
dc.subjectaction planningeng
dc.subjecteffect anticipationeng
dc.subjectideomotor theoryeng
dc.subjectmotor controleng
dc.subject.ddc150 Psychologienone
dc.titleThe Activation of Effect Codes in Response Preparation: New Evidence from an Indirect Priming Paradigmnone
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:kobv:11-110-18452/21900-9
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00585none
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.18452/21166
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionnone
local.edoc.container-titleFrontiers in Psychologynone
local.edoc.pages14none
local.edoc.type-nameZeitschriftenartikel
local.edoc.institutionLebenswissenschaftliche Fakultätnone
local.edoc.container-typeperiodical
local.edoc.container-type-nameZeitschrift
local.edoc.container-publisher-nameFrontiers Media S.A.none
local.edoc.container-publisher-placeLausannenone
local.edoc.container-volume3none
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewednone
local.edoc.container-articlenumber585none
dc.identifier.eissn1664-1078
local.edoc.affiliationZiessler, Michael; Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University Liverpool, UKnone
local.edoc.affiliationNattkemper, Dieter; Department of Psychology, Humboldt University of Berlin Berlin, Germanynone
local.edoc.affiliationVogt, Stefan; Department of Psychology, Centre for Research in Human Development and Learning, Lancaster University Lancaster, UKnone

Show simple item record