Limits...
Introspecting on the Timing of One's Actions in a Visuo-Motor Synchronization Task.

Gzorea A, Rider D - Front Psychol (2011)

Bottom Line: By means of a new visuo-motor synchronization paradigm we test the frequently made proposition that one's feeling of having voluntarily made a decision to act is in fact postdictively established contingent on the outcome of his action rather than on its aim.Instead, response time distributions were bimodal for the shortest (0 ms) and longest (500 ms) SIs and widely spread for intermediate SIs.To all three questions asked, subjects' responses strongly correlated with SI itself (r = 0.62-0.76) and barely with their actual response times (r = 0.03-0.42).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, Université Paris Descartes and CNRS Paris, France.

ABSTRACT
By means of a new visuo-motor synchronization paradigm we test the frequently made proposition that one's feeling of having voluntarily made a decision to act is in fact postdictively established contingent on the outcome of his action rather than on its aim. Subjects had to (1) synchronize a key-press with the end of a random synchronization interval (SI) shorter or longer than their reaction time (RT) and (2) judge thereafter whether (Q1) SI had been long enough to allow synchronization, (Q2) their motor response had been "reactive" (i.e., close to their RT) or delayed, or (Q3) whether SI was short or long. SI was denoted by the filling-up time of an annular "gauge." In principle, the "synchronization" key-press should be reactive for SI ≤ RT and delayed in proportion with SI for SI > RT. Instead, response time distributions were bimodal for the shortest (0 ms) and longest (500 ms) SIs and widely spread for intermediate SIs. To all three questions asked, subjects' responses strongly correlated with SI itself (r = 0.62-0.76) and barely with their actual response times (r = 0.03-0.42). Hence subjects' introspective judgments on their trial-by-trial potential capability to synchronize their motor response (Q1) and on their reactive vs. delayed response mode reflected the objective cause of their action rather than being "corrupted" by its outcome (namely their actual response time). That subjects could not reliably decide whether their motor response was reactive or delayed implies that they did not have retrospective access to (or did not remember) their motor decisions which amounts to say that they could not decide on the intentionality of their actions.

No MeSH data available.


Spatial (A) and temporal (B) display of the stimulus. Note the different ranges of the SI used and the different questions asked in Experiments 1 and 2.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3108554&req=5

Figure 1: Spatial (A) and temporal (B) display of the stimulus. Note the different ranges of the SI used and the different questions asked in Experiments 1 and 2.

Mentions: The stimulus was a 1° thick virtual annulus (the “gauge”) with a 3° external edge radius (Figure 1A) that started to fill up (randomly at one out of eight locations marked by a radial bar) either up white (100 cd/m2) or in black (0.05 cd/m2) on a 50 cd/m2 gray background. Polarity was swapped on each trial to prevent adaptation effects. The filling gage was displayed on a 19” E96f+SB ViewSonic screen (1024 × 768 pixels, 100 Hz refresh rate) 40 cm away from observers’ eyes. The filling-up was always counterclockwise (Figure 1B) and occurred randomly within one out of seven (0, 100, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 ms; Preliminary 2 and Experiment 1), or out of 21 SIs (10 ms apart within a range of 200 ms more or less centered about each observer's RT; Experiment 2; see Procedure). Stimulus presentation and response recording were controlled using the Psychtoolbox (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1997) under Matlab.


Introspecting on the Timing of One's Actions in a Visuo-Motor Synchronization Task.

Gzorea A, Rider D - Front Psychol (2011)

Spatial (A) and temporal (B) display of the stimulus. Note the different ranges of the SI used and the different questions asked in Experiments 1 and 2.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3108554&req=5

Figure 1: Spatial (A) and temporal (B) display of the stimulus. Note the different ranges of the SI used and the different questions asked in Experiments 1 and 2.
Mentions: The stimulus was a 1° thick virtual annulus (the “gauge”) with a 3° external edge radius (Figure 1A) that started to fill up (randomly at one out of eight locations marked by a radial bar) either up white (100 cd/m2) or in black (0.05 cd/m2) on a 50 cd/m2 gray background. Polarity was swapped on each trial to prevent adaptation effects. The filling gage was displayed on a 19” E96f+SB ViewSonic screen (1024 × 768 pixels, 100 Hz refresh rate) 40 cm away from observers’ eyes. The filling-up was always counterclockwise (Figure 1B) and occurred randomly within one out of seven (0, 100, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500 ms; Preliminary 2 and Experiment 1), or out of 21 SIs (10 ms apart within a range of 200 ms more or less centered about each observer's RT; Experiment 2; see Procedure). Stimulus presentation and response recording were controlled using the Psychtoolbox (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1997) under Matlab.

Bottom Line: By means of a new visuo-motor synchronization paradigm we test the frequently made proposition that one's feeling of having voluntarily made a decision to act is in fact postdictively established contingent on the outcome of his action rather than on its aim.Instead, response time distributions were bimodal for the shortest (0 ms) and longest (500 ms) SIs and widely spread for intermediate SIs.To all three questions asked, subjects' responses strongly correlated with SI itself (r = 0.62-0.76) and barely with their actual response times (r = 0.03-0.42).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, Université Paris Descartes and CNRS Paris, France.

ABSTRACT
By means of a new visuo-motor synchronization paradigm we test the frequently made proposition that one's feeling of having voluntarily made a decision to act is in fact postdictively established contingent on the outcome of his action rather than on its aim. Subjects had to (1) synchronize a key-press with the end of a random synchronization interval (SI) shorter or longer than their reaction time (RT) and (2) judge thereafter whether (Q1) SI had been long enough to allow synchronization, (Q2) their motor response had been "reactive" (i.e., close to their RT) or delayed, or (Q3) whether SI was short or long. SI was denoted by the filling-up time of an annular "gauge." In principle, the "synchronization" key-press should be reactive for SI ≤ RT and delayed in proportion with SI for SI > RT. Instead, response time distributions were bimodal for the shortest (0 ms) and longest (500 ms) SIs and widely spread for intermediate SIs. To all three questions asked, subjects' responses strongly correlated with SI itself (r = 0.62-0.76) and barely with their actual response times (r = 0.03-0.42). Hence subjects' introspective judgments on their trial-by-trial potential capability to synchronize their motor response (Q1) and on their reactive vs. delayed response mode reflected the objective cause of their action rather than being "corrupted" by its outcome (namely their actual response time). That subjects could not reliably decide whether their motor response was reactive or delayed implies that they did not have retrospective access to (or did not remember) their motor decisions which amounts to say that they could not decide on the intentionality of their actions.

No MeSH data available.