Abstract
According to the ideomotor theory, action selection is done by the mental anticipation of its perceptual consequences. If the distal information processed mainly by vision and hearing are considered essential for the representation of the action, the proximal information processed by the sense of touch and proprioception is of less importance. Recent works seem to show the opposite. Nevertheless, it is necessary to complete these results by offering a situation, more ecological, where response and effect can occur on the same effector. So, the goal of our work was to implement a more relevant spatial correspondence because to touch is not the same action that to hear or to see. To do so, participants pressed a specific key after the presentation of a stimulus. The key vibrated depending on the pressure exerted on it. In a compatible condition, high pressure on a key triggered a high vibration, while in an incompatible condition high pressure triggered a low vibration on the same effectors. As expected, the response times were faster in the compatible condition than the incompatible condition. This means that proximal information participates actively in the selection of action.
Notes
Remote versus resident effects for Shin et al. (2010).
References
Auvray M, Hanneton S, Lenay C, O’Regan JK (2005) There is something out there: distal attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later. J Integr Neurosci 4:505–521
Bach-y-Rita P, Collins C, Saunders F, White B, Scadden L (1969) Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature 221:963–964
Badets A, Koch I, Philipp AM (2014) A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychol Res 80:1–15
Blanchard C, Roll R, Roll JP, Kavounoudias A (2013) Differential contributions of vision, touch and muscle proprioception to the coding of hand movements. PloS One 8:e62475
Camus T, Brouillet D, Brunel L (2016) Assessing the functional role of motor response during the integration process. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42:1693–1702
Camus T, Hommel B, Brunel L, Brouillet T (2017) From anticipation to integration: the role of integrated action–effects in building sensorimotor contingencies. Psychon Bull Rev. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1308-6
Dijkerman HC, De Haan EH (2007) Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behav Brain Sci 30:189–201
Elsner B, Hommel B (2001) Effect anticipation and action control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:229–240
Elsner B, Hommel B (2004) Contiguity and contingency in action–effect learning. Psychol Res 68:138–154
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191
Gapenne O (2014) The co-constitution of the self and the world: action and proprioceptive coupling. Front Psychol 5:594
Greenwald AG (1970) Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychol Rev 77:73–99
Hommel B (2009) Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychol Res 73:512–526
Hommel B, Müsseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–877
James W (1890) The principles of psychology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Kavounoudias A, Roll JP, Anton JL, Nazarian B, Roth M, Roll R (2008) Proprio-tactile integration for kinesthetic perception: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 46:567–575
Kunde W (2001) Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 27:387–394
Kunde W, Koch I, Hoffmann J (2004) Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. Q J Exp Psychol 57:87–106
Lotze HR (1852) Medicinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele [Medical psychology or the physiology of the mind]. Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig
Osiurak F, Badets A (2014) Pliers, not fingers: tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition 130:66–73
Pfister R, Kunde W (2013) Dissecting the response in response–effect compatibility. Exp Brain Res 224:647–655
Pfister R, Janczyk M, Gressmann M, Fournier LR, Kunde W (2014) Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control. Exp Brain Res 232:847–854
Shin YK, Proctor RW, Capaldi EJ (2010) A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychol Bull 136:943–974
Stillman BC (2002) Making sense of proprioception: the meaning of proprioception, kinaesthesia and related terms. Physiotherapy 8:667–676
Ten Hoopen G, Akerboom S, Raaymakers E (1982) Vibrotactual choice reaction time, tactile receptor systems and ideomotor compatibility. Acta Psychol 50:143–157
Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge
Wirth R, Pfister R, Brandes J, Kunde W (2016) Stroking me softly: body-related effects in effect-based action control. Atten Percept Psychophys 78:1755–1770
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thébault, G., Michalland, AH., Derozier, V. et al. When the vibrations allow for anticipating the force to be produced: an extend to Pfister et al. (2014). Exp Brain Res 236, 1219–1223 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5190-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5190-x