Cargando…

The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory

In this paper we show that response facilitation in choice reaction tasks achieved by priming the (previously perceived) effect is based on stimulus-response associations rather than on response-effect associations. The reduced key-press response time is not accounted for by earlier established coup...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cox, Ralf F. A., Hasselman, Fred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23349793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054094
_version_ 1782256650448535552
author Cox, Ralf F. A.
Hasselman, Fred
author_facet Cox, Ralf F. A.
Hasselman, Fred
author_sort Cox, Ralf F. A.
collection PubMed
description In this paper we show that response facilitation in choice reaction tasks achieved by priming the (previously perceived) effect is based on stimulus-response associations rather than on response-effect associations. The reduced key-press response time is not accounted for by earlier established couplings between the key-press movement and its subsequent effect, but instead results from couplings between this effect and the contingent key-release movement. This key-release movement is an intrinsic part of the entire performed response action in each trial of a reaction-time task, and always spontaneously follows the key-press movement. Eliminating the key-release movement from the task leads to the disappearance of the response facilitation, which raises the question whether response-effect associations actually play a role in studies that use the effect-priming paradigm. Together the three experiments presented in the paper cast serious doubts on the claim that action-effect couplings are acquired and utilized by the cognitive system in the service of action selection, and that the priming paradigm by itself can provide convincing evidence for this claim. As a corollary, we question whether the related two-step model for the ideomotor principle holds a satisfying explanation for how anticipation of future states guides action planning. The results presented here may have profound implications for priming studies in other disciplines of psychology as well.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3551954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35519542013-01-24 The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory Cox, Ralf F. A. Hasselman, Fred PLoS One Research Article In this paper we show that response facilitation in choice reaction tasks achieved by priming the (previously perceived) effect is based on stimulus-response associations rather than on response-effect associations. The reduced key-press response time is not accounted for by earlier established couplings between the key-press movement and its subsequent effect, but instead results from couplings between this effect and the contingent key-release movement. This key-release movement is an intrinsic part of the entire performed response action in each trial of a reaction-time task, and always spontaneously follows the key-press movement. Eliminating the key-release movement from the task leads to the disappearance of the response facilitation, which raises the question whether response-effect associations actually play a role in studies that use the effect-priming paradigm. Together the three experiments presented in the paper cast serious doubts on the claim that action-effect couplings are acquired and utilized by the cognitive system in the service of action selection, and that the priming paradigm by itself can provide convincing evidence for this claim. As a corollary, we question whether the related two-step model for the ideomotor principle holds a satisfying explanation for how anticipation of future states guides action planning. The results presented here may have profound implications for priming studies in other disciplines of psychology as well. Public Library of Science 2013-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3551954/ /pubmed/23349793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054094 Text en © 2013 Cox, Hasselman http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cox, Ralf F. A.
Hasselman, Fred
The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory
title The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory
title_full The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory
title_fullStr The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory
title_full_unstemmed The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory
title_short The Case of Watson vs. James: Effect-Priming Studies Do Not Support Ideomotor Theory
title_sort case of watson vs. james: effect-priming studies do not support ideomotor theory
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23349793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054094
work_keys_str_mv AT coxralffa thecaseofwatsonvsjameseffectprimingstudiesdonotsupportideomotortheory
AT hasselmanfred thecaseofwatsonvsjameseffectprimingstudiesdonotsupportideomotortheory
AT coxralffa caseofwatsonvsjameseffectprimingstudiesdonotsupportideomotortheory
AT hasselmanfred caseofwatsonvsjameseffectprimingstudiesdonotsupportideomotortheory