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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Dan, Custers, Ruud, Marien, Hans, Aarts, Henk
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