Cargando…
Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution
Human habits are widely assumed to result from stimulus-response (S-R) associations that are formed if one frequently and consistently does the same thing in the same situation. According to Ideomotor Theory, a distinct but similar process could lead to response-outcome (R-O) associations if respons...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033682/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32116968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00185 |
_version_ | 1783499722042900480 |
---|---|
author | Sun, Dan Custers, Ruud Marien, Hans Aarts, Henk |
author_facet | Sun, Dan Custers, Ruud Marien, Hans Aarts, Henk |
author_sort | Sun, Dan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Human habits are widely assumed to result from stimulus-response (S-R) associations that are formed if one frequently and consistently does the same thing in the same situation. According to Ideomotor Theory, a distinct but similar process could lead to response-outcome (R-O) associations if responses frequently and consistently produce the same outcomes. This process is assumed to occur spontaneously, and because these associations can operate in a bidirectional manner, merely perceiving or thinking of an outcome should automatically activate the associated action. In the current paper we test this automaticity feature of ideomotor learning. In four experiments, participants completed the same learning phase in which they could acquire associations, and were either explicitly informed about the contingency between actions and outcomes, or not. Automatic action selection and initiation were investigated using a free-choice task in Experiment 1 and forced-choice tasks in Experiment 2, 3a, and 3b. An ideomotor effect was only obtained in the free-choice, but not convincingly in the forced-choice tasks. Together, this suggests that action-outcome relations can be learned spontaneously, but that there may be limits to the automaticity of the ideomotor effect. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7033682 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70336822020-02-28 Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution Sun, Dan Custers, Ruud Marien, Hans Aarts, Henk Front Psychol Psychology Human habits are widely assumed to result from stimulus-response (S-R) associations that are formed if one frequently and consistently does the same thing in the same situation. According to Ideomotor Theory, a distinct but similar process could lead to response-outcome (R-O) associations if responses frequently and consistently produce the same outcomes. This process is assumed to occur spontaneously, and because these associations can operate in a bidirectional manner, merely perceiving or thinking of an outcome should automatically activate the associated action. In the current paper we test this automaticity feature of ideomotor learning. In four experiments, participants completed the same learning phase in which they could acquire associations, and were either explicitly informed about the contingency between actions and outcomes, or not. Automatic action selection and initiation were investigated using a free-choice task in Experiment 1 and forced-choice tasks in Experiment 2, 3a, and 3b. An ideomotor effect was only obtained in the free-choice, but not convincingly in the forced-choice tasks. Together, this suggests that action-outcome relations can be learned spontaneously, but that there may be limits to the automaticity of the ideomotor effect. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7033682/ /pubmed/32116968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00185 Text en Copyright © 2020 Sun, Custers, Marien and Aarts. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Sun, Dan Custers, Ruud Marien, Hans Aarts, Henk Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution |
title | Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution |
title_full | Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution |
title_fullStr | Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution |
title_full_unstemmed | Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution |
title_short | Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution |
title_sort | ideomotor action: evidence for automaticity in learning, but not execution |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033682/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32116968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00185 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sundan ideomotoractionevidenceforautomaticityinlearningbutnotexecution AT custersruud ideomotoractionevidenceforautomaticityinlearningbutnotexecution AT marienhans ideomotoractionevidenceforautomaticityinlearningbutnotexecution AT aartshenk ideomotoractionevidenceforautomaticityinlearningbutnotexecution |