Limits...
Motivation modulates visual attention: evidence from pupillometry.

Wykowska A, Anderl C, Schubö A, Hommel B - Front Psychol (2013)

Bottom Line: Increasing evidence suggests that action planning does not only affect the preparation and execution of overt actions but also "works back" to tune the perceptual system toward action-relevant information.We conclude that motivation and effort might play a crucial role in how much participants prepare for an action and activate action codes.The degree of activation of action codes in turn influences the observed action-related biases on perception.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Increasing evidence suggests that action planning does not only affect the preparation and execution of overt actions but also "works back" to tune the perceptual system toward action-relevant information. We investigated whether the amount of this impact of action planning on perceptual selection varies as a function of motivation for action, which was assessed online by means of pupillometry (Experiment 1) and visual analog scales (VAS, Experiment 2). Findings replicate the earlier observation that searching for size-defined targets is more efficient in the context of grasping than in the context of pointing movements (Wykowska et al., 2009). As expected, changes in tonic pupil size (reflecting changes in effort and motivation) across the sessions, as well as changes in motivation-related scores on the VAS were found to correlate with changes in the size of the action-perception congruency effect. We conclude that motivation and effort might play a crucial role in how much participants prepare for an action and activate action codes. The degree of activation of action codes in turn influences the observed action-related biases on perception.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean RTs as a function of congruency and block in Experiment 2. Congruent (white bars) and incongruent condition (gray bars) for target present displays in the first block (left) and second block (right). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean, adapted to within-participants designs, according to procedure described in Cousineau (2005).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3569841&req=5

Figure 4: Mean RTs as a function of congruency and block in Experiment 2. Congruent (white bars) and incongruent condition (gray bars) for target present displays in the first block (left) and second block (right). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean, adapted to within-participants designs, according to procedure described in Cousineau (2005).

Mentions: The 2 × 2 ANOVA on mean RTs with the factors movement type (grasping vs. pointing) and display type (target present vs. target absent) revealed a significant interaction between movement type and display type, F(1, 15) = 14.54, p < 0.005, . No other effects reached the level of significance, all ps > 0.6. The congruency effect was observed for target present trials (MGrasp = 461 ms, SEM = 17, MPoint = 475 ms, SEM = 16), t(15) = 1.94, p < 0.05, one-tailed, see Figure 4.


Motivation modulates visual attention: evidence from pupillometry.

Wykowska A, Anderl C, Schubö A, Hommel B - Front Psychol (2013)

Mean RTs as a function of congruency and block in Experiment 2. Congruent (white bars) and incongruent condition (gray bars) for target present displays in the first block (left) and second block (right). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean, adapted to within-participants designs, according to procedure described in Cousineau (2005).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3569841&req=5

Figure 4: Mean RTs as a function of congruency and block in Experiment 2. Congruent (white bars) and incongruent condition (gray bars) for target present displays in the first block (left) and second block (right). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean, adapted to within-participants designs, according to procedure described in Cousineau (2005).
Mentions: The 2 × 2 ANOVA on mean RTs with the factors movement type (grasping vs. pointing) and display type (target present vs. target absent) revealed a significant interaction between movement type and display type, F(1, 15) = 14.54, p < 0.005, . No other effects reached the level of significance, all ps > 0.6. The congruency effect was observed for target present trials (MGrasp = 461 ms, SEM = 17, MPoint = 475 ms, SEM = 16), t(15) = 1.94, p < 0.05, one-tailed, see Figure 4.

Bottom Line: Increasing evidence suggests that action planning does not only affect the preparation and execution of overt actions but also "works back" to tune the perceptual system toward action-relevant information.We conclude that motivation and effort might play a crucial role in how much participants prepare for an action and activate action codes.The degree of activation of action codes in turn influences the observed action-related biases on perception.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Increasing evidence suggests that action planning does not only affect the preparation and execution of overt actions but also "works back" to tune the perceptual system toward action-relevant information. We investigated whether the amount of this impact of action planning on perceptual selection varies as a function of motivation for action, which was assessed online by means of pupillometry (Experiment 1) and visual analog scales (VAS, Experiment 2). Findings replicate the earlier observation that searching for size-defined targets is more efficient in the context of grasping than in the context of pointing movements (Wykowska et al., 2009). As expected, changes in tonic pupil size (reflecting changes in effort and motivation) across the sessions, as well as changes in motivation-related scores on the VAS were found to correlate with changes in the size of the action-perception congruency effect. We conclude that motivation and effort might play a crucial role in how much participants prepare for an action and activate action codes. The degree of activation of action codes in turn influences the observed action-related biases on perception.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus