1. Perceiving One’s Own Action-- and What it Leads to Bernhard Hommel

2. What’s the Problem? What role, if any, do action effects play in human action? “…the control of goal directed movements critically depends on previous perceptions of movement- effect relationships, hence, on the integration of action effects.” (p. 143)

3. Previous Approaches to Action Effects Action effects = basis of voluntary behavior. Lotze, Hareless, & the Effektbild 1.We know what we intend, but not how we do it. 2.How muscles coordinated, even though not ‘know’ how? 3.Cognitive representations of action effects. (Figure 1a) 4.Action effects not just ‘cues’ regarding success or failure, rather become integrated with motor patterns

4. Action effects as Learning Criteria: Thorndike and the Law of Effect 1.“What comes after an action acts upon it to alter its strength” 2.Action effect influences the strength of bond between stimulus and response (Figure 1b). 3.3rd-person perspective. (Harless & Lotze = phenomenal) 4.Versus Effektbild: 1.Only hedonistic value of action effect matters 2.Action effect not part of emerging (learned) structure.

5. Action effects as Information: Tolman and the Mental Map 1.Behavior influenced by quality of reward. Not just any reward. Effect (banana vs.. lettuce) becomes goal 2.Rats not learn sequence of motor acts, but maps. 3.Hedonic value more important to performance than learning. (Latent Learning) 4.Learning may not be related to hedonic value (holes, pegs, bells & shocks). 5.Effects are more than ‘glue’ for S-R bonds. (Harless)

6. Action effects as Controlled Inputs: Closed loops and systems theory 1.T-O-T-E: Input = perceived action effects. (Miller) 2.Closed-loops & motor learning (Adams) 1.Perceptual trace (effect) & memory trace (motor) 2.Learns motor means to get action effect + criterion 3. Adam’s perceptual trace = Miller’s test phase 4. 4. Adam’s memory trace = Miller’s action phase 4. Hein & Held: Re-afference principle Efference-copy and re-afference become associated 5. Hershberger: The behavior causes the stimulus

7. Action effects as Prescriptions: Open loops and motor programs 1.Actions can be produced without feedback. Controlled by motor programs--no need for feedback. 2.But: 1. De-afferent usually in one modality (info available) `2. Learned motor acts produced, but maybe need feedback during learning. 3. So real diff between open & closed = performance vs. learning.

8. The Action-Concept Model 1.Figure 2 2.Once acquired, can be used in a ‘backwards’ way 3.Similar, yet different from Harless & Lotze 1.Intrinsic feedback any type of feedback 2.Action effect coded as bundles of feature codes versus monolithic cognitive structures 3.Not distinguish between stimulus and response codes

9. Forms of Action-effect Automatic Integration Hommel (1996) Acquisition: S1 --> R1 --> E1 and S2 --> R2 --> E2 Testing: S1 + E1 --> R1 = Compatible mappings S1 + E2 --> R1 = Incompatible mappings Results: Compatible significantly faster than incompatible. Implications: 1. Rs primed by their associated effects 2. Priming was automatic

10. Forms of Action-effect Multiple Coding of Action Effects 1.Can actions be represented by several feature-based effect codes? 2.Two hypothesis: 1.Several action-representing effect codes can exist. 2.Effect codes are bundles of effect-feature codes. 3. Spatial-compatibility tasks: Right S --> Right R is faster 4. Simon-effect (Figure 3): Multiple ‘left’ codes with M 1. Figure 4: light-space effector-space anatomical space 2. All 3 crossed 3. Higher-degree compatibility = smaller Simon effect 4. Each effect code had its own effect of RTs.