Abstract
An action-effect temporal contiguity holds essential information for motor control. Emerging accounts suggest that the temporally contiguous action effect is rewarding in and of itself, further promoting the development of motor representations and reinforcing the selection of the relevant motor program. The current study follows these theoretical and empirical indications to directly investigate the promoting impact of action effect temporal contiguity on motor performance. In two experiments, participants rapidly moved toward a target location on a computer monitor and clicked on the target with their mouse key as quickly and accurately as possible. Their click response triggered a perceptual effect (a brief flash) on the target. To examine the impact of action-effect delay and its temporal contiguity context, we manipulated action-effect delay in two temporal contiguity contexts—long versus short lag conditions. The findings demonstrate that the temporally contiguous perceptual effect enhances motor performance as indicated by end-point precision and movement speed. In addition, a substantial impact of the temporal contiguity context was observed. Namely, we found enhanced motor performance after an ambiguous (300 ms) action-effect delay sampled from short compared to long lag distributions (Experiment 1). This pattern was inconclusive for an immediate action effect (Experiment 2). We discuss the findings in the context of reinforcement from action effect and movement control.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data and scripts for all experiments are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. After publication, the data will be available for researchers in the OSF repository (https://osf.io/fktxc/).
References
Bays, P. M., & Wolpert, D. M. (2007). Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability. The Journal of Physiology, 578(2), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1113/JPHYSIOL.2006.120121
Blakemore, S. J., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (1999). Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(5), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563607
Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(6), 237–242.
Dienes, Z. (2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 78–89.
Eitam, B., Kennedy, P. M., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Motivation from control. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3370-7
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68(2), 138–154.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
Frith, C. (2012). Explaining delusions of control: The comparator model 20 years on. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2011.06.010
Frith, C. D., Blakemore, S. J., & Wolpert, D. M. (2000). Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Research Reviews, 31(2/3), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00052-1
Hauf, P., Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (2004). The role of action effects in infants’ action control. Psychological Research, 68(2), 115–125.
Hemed, E., Bakbani-Elkayam, S., Teodorescu, A. R., Yona, L., & Eitam, B. (2020). Evaluation of an action’s effectiveness by the motor system in a dynamic environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(5), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000692
Hemed, E., Karsh, N., Mark-Tavger, I., & Eitam, B. (2022). Motivation(s) from control: Response-effect contingency and confirmation of sensorimotor predictions reinforce different levels of selection. Experimental Brain Research, 240(5), 1471–1497.
Hommel, B. (2005). Perception in action: Multiple roles of sensory information in action control. Cognitive Processing, 6(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-004-0040-0
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(5), 849–878.
JASP Team. (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.3) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Karsh, N., & Eitam, B. (2015). I control therefore I do: Judgments of agency influence action selection. Cognition, 138, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.002
Karsh, N., & Eitam, B. (2015). Motivation from control. In P. Haggard & B. Eitam (Eds.), The sense of agency (pp. 265–286). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190267278.003.0012
Karsh, N., Eitam, B., Mark, I., & Higgins, E. T. (2016). Bootstrapping agency: How control-relevant information affects motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(10), 1333–1350. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000212
Karsh, N., Haklay, I., Raijman, N., Lampel, A., & Custers, R. (2021). Control alters risk-taking: The motivating impact of action-effectiveness in different risk contexts. Motivation Science 7(4), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000244
Karsh, N., Hemed, E., Nafcha, O., Elkayam, S. B., Custers, R., & Eitam, B. (2020). The differential impact of a response’s effectiveness and its monetary value on response-selection. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 3405–3405. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60385-9
Meyer, D. E., Abrams, R. A., Kornblum, S., Wright, C. E., & Smith, J. E. K. (1988). Optimality in human motor performance: Ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychological Review, 95(3), 340–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.340
Miall, R. C., & Wolpert, D. M. (1996). Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks, 9(8), 1265–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-6080(96)00035-4
Rochat, P. (1998). Self-perception and action in infancy. Experimental Brain Research, 123(1), 102–109.
Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A., & Krakauer, J. W. (2010). Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135
Shimada, S., Fukuda, K., & Hiraki, K. (2009). Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PLOS ONE, 4(7), e6185.
Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2007.03.010
Tanaka, T., Watanabe, K., & Tanaka, K. (2021). Immediate action effects motivate actions based on the stimulus–response relationship. Experimental Brain Research, 239, 67–78.
Thomas, J. R., Yan, J. H., & Stelmach, G. E. (2000). Movement substructures change as a function of practice in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75(3), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2535
Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2006). General to specific development of movement patterns and memory for contingency between actions and events in young infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 29(3), 402–422.
Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2009). Flexibility in infant actions during arm-and leg-based learning in a mobile paradigm. Infant Behavior and Development, 32(1), 79–90.
Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2011). Initial-state dependency of learning in young infants. Human Movement Science, 30(1), 125–142.
Wen, W. (2019). Does delay in feedback diminish sense of agency? A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 73, 102759. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2019.05.007
Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3(S11), 1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1038/81497
Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269(5232), 1880–1882. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7569931
Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Motor prediction. Current Biology, 11(18), PR729–R732. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00432-8
Woodworth, R. S. (1899). Accuracy of voluntary movement. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 3(3), i–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0092992
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Karsh, N., Ahmad, Z., Erez, F. et al. An effect that counts: Temporally contiguous action effect enhances motor performance. Psychon Bull Rev 31, 897–905 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02387-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02387-y