Abstract
Previous research has shown that actions conducted toward temporal targets and temporal effects are controlled in a similar way. To investigate whether these findings also apply to spatially restricted movements we analyzed movement kinematics of continuous reversal movements toward given spatial targets and toward self-produced spatial effects in two experiments. In Experiment 1 target- and effect-directed movements were investigated in three different goal constellations. A spatial target/effect was always presented/produced on one movement side, on the other side either (a) no target/effect, (b) the same target/effect, or (c) a more difficult target/effect was presented/produced. Results showed that both target-directed and effect-directed movements have a typical spatial kinematic pattern and that both can be equally well described by linear functions as suggested by Fitts’ Law. However, effect-directed movements have longer movement times. In Experiment 2 participants performed target-directed movements to the one side and effect-directed movements to the other side of a reversal movement. More pronounced spatial kinematics were observed in effect-directed than in target-directed movements. Together, the results suggest that actions conducted toward spatial targets and spatial effects are controlled in a similar manner. Gradual differences in the kinematic patterns may arise because effects are cognitively more demanding. They may therefore be represented less accurately than targets. However, there was no indication of qualitative differences in the cognitive representations of effects and targets. This strengthens our assumption that both targets and effects play a comparable role in action control: they can both be viewed as goals of an action. Thus, ideomotor theories of action control should incorporate action targets as goals similar to action effects.
Highlights
Every day we perform intentional, goal-directed actions
Overall the data show that the movement kinematics are very similar in target- and effect-directed actions
We observed no main effect of GoalCondition and no interactions with the factor GoalCondition in PTPV and PMT
Summary
Every day we perform intentional, goal-directed actions. Action goals differentiate an action from pure movement and fall into two broad categories. In the present paper action goals are viewed in the light of the ideomotor theory of action control (James, 1890/1981; Prinz, 1997). The ideomotor theory has found broad empirical evidence (Elsner and Hommel, 2001, 2004; Hommel et al, 2003; for a historical overview see Stock and Stock, 2004) and states that an action is selected, initiated, and executed by anticipating the perceptual consequences of the action in question. We assume that both targets and effects are represented as action goals in motor control in the sense of the ideomotor theory. The representation of the intended perceptual consequences, in both target- and effect-directed movements, is responsible for the initiation, selection, and execution of a movement. Targetdirected actions entail the representation of action goals such as “to be at a certain place at a given time.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
