Limits...
Using tools with real and imagined tool movements.

Müsseler J, Wühr P, Ziessler M - Front Psychol (2014)

Bottom Line: In the present study we examine whether the occurrence of compatibility effects needs real tool movements or whether a similar response pattern can be already evoked by pure mental imaginations of the tool effects.In general, response times and errors observed with real and imagined tool movements showed a similar pattern of results, but there were also differences.With incompatible relationships and thus more difficult tasks, response times were reduced with imagined tool movements than compared with real tool movements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Work and Cognitive Psychology, RWTH Aachen University Aachen, Germany.

ABSTRACT
WHEN USING LEVER TOOLS, SUBJECTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH TWO, NOT NECESSARILY CONCORDANT EFFECTS OF THEIR MOTOR BEHAVIOR: the body-related proximal effects, like tactile sensations from the moving hand, and/or more external distal effects, like the moving effect points of the lever. As a consequence, spatial compatibility relationships between stimulus (S; at which the effect points of the lever aim at), responding hand (R) and effect point of the lever (E) play a critical role in response generation. In the present study we examine whether the occurrence of compatibility effects needs real tool movements or whether a similar response pattern can be already evoked by pure mental imaginations of the tool effects. In general, response times and errors observed with real and imagined tool movements showed a similar pattern of results, but there were also differences. With incompatible relationships and thus more difficult tasks, response times were reduced with imagined tool movements than compared with real tool movements. On the contrary, with compatible relationships and thus high overlap between proximal and distal action effects, response times were increased with imagined tool movements. Results are only in parts consistent with the ideomotor theory of motor control.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The U-lever (A) and the inverted U-lever (B) in the study of Müsseler and Skottke (2011). Imperative stimuli were “+” or “ × ” indicating the requirement to move the lever’s effect point toward the stimulus or to move the lever’s effect point away from it. The open circles in the middle of the cross bar represent the pivot, the filled circles at the ends of the upward or downward rods the lever’s effect points. The larger dotted circles indicated other stimulus positions.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060803&req=5

Figure 1: The U-lever (A) and the inverted U-lever (B) in the study of Müsseler and Skottke (2011). Imperative stimuli were “+” or “ × ” indicating the requirement to move the lever’s effect point toward the stimulus or to move the lever’s effect point away from it. The open circles in the middle of the cross bar represent the pivot, the filled circles at the ends of the upward or downward rods the lever’s effect points. The larger dotted circles indicated other stimulus positions.

Mentions: To our knowledge, SR, SE, and RE compatibilities were varied simultaneously only in a study by Müsseler and Skottke (2011). In their experiment the authors used an U-lever and an inverted U-lever with a pivot: the tool consisted of a vertical rod with a grip at the bottom part and a centrally placed crossbar in the upper part (Figure 1). The pivot point was in the middle of the horizontal rod and the tool’s effect points were at the ends of additional upward or downward oriented rods attached to the crossbar. Using these tools made it possible to manipulate SR, SE, and RE compatibilities independently of each other in a full 2 × 2 × 2 design allowing to examine the contribution of each compatibility relationship and their interactions to response times and errors1.


Using tools with real and imagined tool movements.

Müsseler J, Wühr P, Ziessler M - Front Psychol (2014)

The U-lever (A) and the inverted U-lever (B) in the study of Müsseler and Skottke (2011). Imperative stimuli were “+” or “ × ” indicating the requirement to move the lever’s effect point toward the stimulus or to move the lever’s effect point away from it. The open circles in the middle of the cross bar represent the pivot, the filled circles at the ends of the upward or downward rods the lever’s effect points. The larger dotted circles indicated other stimulus positions.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060803&req=5

Figure 1: The U-lever (A) and the inverted U-lever (B) in the study of Müsseler and Skottke (2011). Imperative stimuli were “+” or “ × ” indicating the requirement to move the lever’s effect point toward the stimulus or to move the lever’s effect point away from it. The open circles in the middle of the cross bar represent the pivot, the filled circles at the ends of the upward or downward rods the lever’s effect points. The larger dotted circles indicated other stimulus positions.
Mentions: To our knowledge, SR, SE, and RE compatibilities were varied simultaneously only in a study by Müsseler and Skottke (2011). In their experiment the authors used an U-lever and an inverted U-lever with a pivot: the tool consisted of a vertical rod with a grip at the bottom part and a centrally placed crossbar in the upper part (Figure 1). The pivot point was in the middle of the horizontal rod and the tool’s effect points were at the ends of additional upward or downward oriented rods attached to the crossbar. Using these tools made it possible to manipulate SR, SE, and RE compatibilities independently of each other in a full 2 × 2 × 2 design allowing to examine the contribution of each compatibility relationship and their interactions to response times and errors1.

Bottom Line: In the present study we examine whether the occurrence of compatibility effects needs real tool movements or whether a similar response pattern can be already evoked by pure mental imaginations of the tool effects.In general, response times and errors observed with real and imagined tool movements showed a similar pattern of results, but there were also differences.With incompatible relationships and thus more difficult tasks, response times were reduced with imagined tool movements than compared with real tool movements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Work and Cognitive Psychology, RWTH Aachen University Aachen, Germany.

ABSTRACT
WHEN USING LEVER TOOLS, SUBJECTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH TWO, NOT NECESSARILY CONCORDANT EFFECTS OF THEIR MOTOR BEHAVIOR: the body-related proximal effects, like tactile sensations from the moving hand, and/or more external distal effects, like the moving effect points of the lever. As a consequence, spatial compatibility relationships between stimulus (S; at which the effect points of the lever aim at), responding hand (R) and effect point of the lever (E) play a critical role in response generation. In the present study we examine whether the occurrence of compatibility effects needs real tool movements or whether a similar response pattern can be already evoked by pure mental imaginations of the tool effects. In general, response times and errors observed with real and imagined tool movements showed a similar pattern of results, but there were also differences. With incompatible relationships and thus more difficult tasks, response times were reduced with imagined tool movements than compared with real tool movements. On the contrary, with compatible relationships and thus high overlap between proximal and distal action effects, response times were increased with imagined tool movements. Results are only in parts consistent with the ideomotor theory of motor control.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus