TY - JOUR
T1 - Examination of a Response–Effect Compatibility Task With Continuous Mouse Movements
T2 - Free-Versus Forced-Choice Tasks and Sequential Modulations
AU - Schonard, Carolin
AU - Proctor, Robert W.
AU - Xiong, Aiping
AU - Janczyk, Markus
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - According to ideomotor theory, we select actions by recalling and anticipating their sensory consequences, that is, their action effects. Compelling evidence for this theory comes from response–effect compatibility (REC) experiments, in which a response produces an effect with which it is either compatible or incompatible. For example, pressing a left/right response key is faster if it is predictably followed by an action effect on the same, compatible side compared with the other, incompatible side, even though the effect itself appears only after response time is measured. Recent studies investigated this effect with continuous responses (i.e., computer mouse movements) and reported an REC effect in a forced-choice but not in a free-choice task. From the key-pressing literature, the opposite result pattern or no differences would have been expected. To clarify this issue, we report 3 experiments with mouse movement responses. Experiment 1 used a simpler scenario than in prior studies and found a similar result: The REC effect was evident in a forced but not in a free-choice task. Also, sequential modulations of the REC effect were exploratorily analyzed and replicated with higher power in Experiment 2. However, Experiment 3 demonstrated that at least part of the REC effect with mouse movements can be attributed to stimulus–response compatibility (SRC), with a much smaller compatibility effect evident with a procedure for which SRC was reduced. We conclude that a sequentially modulated compatibility effect can be observed with mouse movements, but previous studies may have underestimated the contribution from SRC. The results are also discussed in terms of why the compatibility effect was observed in forced but not free-choice tasks with mouse movement responses.
AB - According to ideomotor theory, we select actions by recalling and anticipating their sensory consequences, that is, their action effects. Compelling evidence for this theory comes from response–effect compatibility (REC) experiments, in which a response produces an effect with which it is either compatible or incompatible. For example, pressing a left/right response key is faster if it is predictably followed by an action effect on the same, compatible side compared with the other, incompatible side, even though the effect itself appears only after response time is measured. Recent studies investigated this effect with continuous responses (i.e., computer mouse movements) and reported an REC effect in a forced-choice but not in a free-choice task. From the key-pressing literature, the opposite result pattern or no differences would have been expected. To clarify this issue, we report 3 experiments with mouse movement responses. Experiment 1 used a simpler scenario than in prior studies and found a similar result: The REC effect was evident in a forced but not in a free-choice task. Also, sequential modulations of the REC effect were exploratorily analyzed and replicated with higher power in Experiment 2. However, Experiment 3 demonstrated that at least part of the REC effect with mouse movements can be attributed to stimulus–response compatibility (SRC), with a much smaller compatibility effect evident with a procedure for which SRC was reduced. We conclude that a sequentially modulated compatibility effect can be observed with mouse movements, but previous studies may have underestimated the contribution from SRC. The results are also discussed in terms of why the compatibility effect was observed in forced but not free-choice tasks with mouse movement responses.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125093876&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85125093876&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5406/amerjpsyc.134.4.0415
DO - 10.5406/amerjpsyc.134.4.0415
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85125093876
SN - 0002-9556
VL - 134
SP - 415
EP - 439
JO - American Journal of Psychology
JF - American Journal of Psychology
IS - 4
ER -