Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of verbal instructions on effect-based action control

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to ideomotor theory, people use bidirectional associations between movements and their effects for action selection and initiation. Our experiments examined how verbal instructions of action effects influence response selection without prior experience of action effects in a separate acquisition phase. Instructions for different groups of participants specified whether they should ignore, attend, learn, or intentionally produce acoustic effects produced by button presses. Results showed that explicit instructions of action–effect relations trigger effect-congruent action tendencies in the first trials following the instruction; in contrast, no evidence for effect-based action control was observed in these trials when instructions were to ignore or to attend to the action effects. These findings show that action-effect knowledge acquired through verbal instruction and direct experience is similarly effective for effect-based action control as long as the relation between the movement and the effect is clearly spelled out in the instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, M., Wenke, D., Spengler, S., & Waszak, F. (2009). Neural correlates of overcoming interference from instructed and implemented stimulus–response associations. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 1766–1772. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5259-08.2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1140–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: Flanker compatibility effects found in first trial following S–R instructions. Experimental Psychology, 56, 128–133. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.2.128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., Vandorpe, S., & Custers, R. (2005). Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 659–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, D., Pfister, R., Eder, A. B., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Representing the hyphen in action–effect associations: automatic acquisition and bidirectional retrieval of action–effect intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1701–1712. doi:10.1037/xlm0000022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, A. B. (2011). Control of impulsive emotional behaviour through implementation intentions. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 478–489. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.527493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action–effect learning. Psychological Research, 68, 138–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, T., Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Automatic motor activation by mere instruction. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1300–1309. doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0294-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flach, R., Osman, M., Dickinson, A., & Heyes, C. (2006). The interaction between response effects during the acquisition of response priming. Acta Psychologica, 122, 11–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartstra, E., Kühn, S., Verguts, T., & Brass, M. (2011). The implementation of verbal instructions: an fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 1811–1824. doi:10.1002/hbm.21152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 219–227. doi:10.1080/17470210802373290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2012). Action-effect bindings and ideomotor learning in intention- and stimulus-based Actions. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00444.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance (Vol. XVIII, pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: on the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Elsner, K., & Kiesel, A. (2007). No anticipation–no action: the role of anticipation in action and perception. Cognitive Processing, 8, 71–78. doi:10.1007/s10339-007-0162-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liefooghe, B., De Houwer, J., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 481–487. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0374-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liefooghe, B., Wenke, D., & De Houwer, J. (2012). Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1325–1335. doi:10.1037/a0028148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Cohen-Kdoshay, O. (2012). Working memory load but not multitasking eliminates the prepared reflex: further evidence from the adapted flanker paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 139, 309–313. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: intention-based reflexivity and working-memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 104. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015a). The power of instructions: proactive configuration of stimulus–response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 768–786. doi:10.1037/xlm0000063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015b). Reflexive activation of newly instructed stimulus–response rules: evidence from lateralized readiness potentials in no-go trials. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 365–373. doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0321-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259. doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183–198. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000855.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nattkemper, D., Ziessler, M., & Frensch, P. A. (2010). Binding in voluntary action control. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 1092–1101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, M., van Dam, W., Hunnius, S., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2011). Action-effect binding by observational learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 1022–1028. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0136-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Learning at any rate: action–effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research, 75, 61–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Melcher, T. (2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 316–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., Pfeuffer, C. U., & Kunde, W. (2014). Perceiving by proxy: effect-based action control with unperceivable effects. Cognition, 132, 251–261. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwes, M., De Houwer, J., Eder, A., & Liefooghe, B. (2015). Congruency effects on the basis of instructed response-effect contingencies. Acta Psychologica, 158, 43–50. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Eliminating the Simon effect by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1470–1480. doi:10.1037/a0036913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Todorov, E., & Jordan, M. I. (2002). Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1226–1235. doi:10.1038/nn963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., De Houwer, J., Winne, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2014). Learning through instructions vs. learning through practice: Flanker congruency effects from instructed and applied S–R mappings. Psychological Research,. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0621-1. (Online advance publication).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2007). Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research, 71, 92–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2011). On the timescale of stimulus-based action–effect learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1273–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 648–660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zwosta, K., Ruge, H., & Wolfensteller, U. (2013). No anticipation without intention: response–effect compatibility in effect-based and stimulus-based actions. Acta Psychologica, 144, 628–634. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.09.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Grant ED 201/2-2 of the German Research Foundation (DFG) to Andreas Eder. We thank Roland Pfister for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 10, 97070, Würzburg, Germany

    Andreas B. Eder

  2. University of Freiburg i.Br., Freiburg, Germany

    David Dignath

Authors
  1. Andreas B. Eder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Dignath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas B. Eder.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Appendix: Instructions

Appendix: Instructions

Baseline condition (after acquisition phase).

Your task is to respond to a high (low) tone as fast as possible with a press of the left button and to a low (high) tone as fast as possible with a press of the right button.

Each key press produces a tone. This tone is irrelevant for your task and should be ignored.

Unspecified-ignore condition (no acquisition phase).

Same as in the baseline condition.

Unspecified-attention condition (no acquisition phase).

Your task is to respond to a high (low) tone as fast as possible with a press of the left button and to a low (high) tone as fast as possible with a press of the right button.

Each key press produces a particular tone. Find out which response key produces which tone. We will ask you at the end of the experiment about this relationship.

Specified-contingency condition (no acquisition phase).

Your task is to respond to a high (low) tone as fast as possible with a press of the left button and to a low (high) tone as fast as possible with a press of the right button.

Each button press produces a tone. This tone is irrelevant for the task at hand and can be ignored. A press of the left button produces a high (low) tone. A press of the right button produces a low (high) tone. Please memorize these relations. We will ask you at the end of the experiment about them.

Specified-intention condition (no acquisition phase).

Each button press produces a tone. The left button produces a high (low) tone, the right button produces a low (high) tone. Please memorize these relations. You will need them for the upcoming task.

Your task is to respond to tones: create a high (low) tone as quickly as possible when you hear a high tone and create a low (high) tone as quickly as possible when you hear a low tone.

Attention: in some trials the words HIGH and LOW will appear instead of a tone. You must quickly produce a corresponding tone in these trials (i.e., HIGH-high tone, LOW-low tone).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eder, A.B., Dignath, D. Influence of verbal instructions on effect-based action control. Psychological Research 81, 355–365 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0745-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0745-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation