Literature DB >> 22201462

Do endogenous and exogenous action control compete for perception?

Roland Pfister1, Alexander Heinemann, Andrea Kiesel, Roland Thomaschke, Markus Janczyk.   

Abstract

Human actions are guided either by endogenous action plans or by external stimuli in the environment. These two types of action control seem to be mediated by neurophysiologically and functionally distinct systems that interfere if an endogenously planned action suddenly has to be performed in response to an exogenous stimulus. In this case, the endogenous representation has to be deactivated first to give way to the exogenous system. Here we show that interference of endogenous and exogenous action control is not limited to motor-related aspects but also affects the perception of action-related stimuli. Participants associated two actions with contingent sensory effects in learning blocks. In subsequent test blocks, preparing one of these actions specifically impaired responding to the associated effect in an exogenous speeded detection task, yielding a blindness-like effect for arbitrary, learned action effects. In accordance with the theory of event coding, this finding suggests that action planning influences perception even in the absence of any physical similarities between action and to-be-perceived stimuli.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22201462     DOI: 10.1037/a0026658

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  17 in total

1.  Visuospatial cueing by self-caused features: Orienting of attention and action-outcome associative learning.

Authors:  Davood G Gozli; Hira Aslam; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-04

2.  Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility.

Authors:  Roland Pfister; Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing.

Authors:  Markus Janczyk; Michael Dambacher; Maik Bieleke; Peter M Gollwitzer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-03-12

4.  Action effect features, but not anatomical features, determine the Backward Crosstalk Effect: evidence from crossed-hands experiments.

Authors:  Sandra Renas; Moritz Durst; Markus Janczyk
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-06-15

5.  Social learning of action-effect associations: Modulation of action control following observation of virtual action's effects.

Authors:  Kathleen Belhassein; Peter J Marshall; Arnaud Badets; Cédric A Bouquet
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 6.  Common coding and dynamic interactions between observed, imagined, and experienced motor and somatosensory activity.

Authors:  Laura K Case; Jaime Pineda; Vilayanur S Ramachandran
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Interactions among endogenous, exogenous, and agency-driven attentional selection mechanisms in interactive displays.

Authors:  Adam C Vilanova-Goldstein; Greg Huffman; James R Brockmole
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 8.  Sociomotor action control.

Authors:  Wilfried Kunde; Lisa Weller; Roland Pfister
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

9.  Are self-caused distractors easier to ignore? Experiments with the flanker task.

Authors:  CiJun Gao; Davood G Gozli
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials.

Authors:  Maike Kemper; Valentin J Umbach; Sabine Schwager; Robert Gaschler; Peter A Frensch; Birgit Stürmer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-12-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.