Exploring the role of verbal-semantic overlap in response-effect compatibility.

According to ideomotor accounts, actions are cognitively represented by their sensory effects. The response-effect compatibility (R-E compatibility) paradigm investigates this notion by presenting predictable effect stimuli that are produced by the response ("response effects"). The R-E compatibility effect denotes the finding of better performance in R-E compatible conditions than in incompatible conditions, suggesting that anticipation of the effect stimulus primes the response. Most previous studies employed perceptual R-E overlap manipulations (e.g., spatial, temporal or phonological overlap of response and predictable response effect). In the present study, we examined verbal-semantic response-effect overlap. In Experiment 1, we used category words as vocal responses and semantically associated vs. non-associated exemplar words for auditory response effects (or exemplar words as responses and category words as effects, respectively) to manipulate verbal-semantic R-E overlap without perceptual-phonological similarity. In Experiments 2A and 2B, we used the response word also as an "identical" auditory effect word (i.e., both verbal-semantic and perceptual-phonological R-E overlap). An R-E compatibility effect was observed only when there was both verbal-semantic and perceptual-phonological R-E overlap. These data suggest that anticipation of perceptual response features may be critical in the R-E compatibility paradigm, whereas the role of verbal-semantic processes in response-effect anticipation still needs to be established more firmly. We discuss how perceptual and conceptual processes can interact in ideomotor control of action.

Exploring the representational basis of response-effect compatibility: Evidence from bilingual verbal response-effect mappings.

The ideomotor principle states that actions are represented by their anticipated sensory effects. This notion is often tested using the response-effect compatibility (REC) paradigm, where participants' responses are followed either by a compatible or incompatible response effect (e.g., an effect on the right side after a right-hand response is considered R-E compatible due to the spatial overlap, whereas an effect on the left side after the right-hand response is considered incompatible). Shorter reaction times are typically observed in the compatible condition compared to the incompatible condition (i.e., REC effect), suggesting that effect anticipation plays a role in action control. Previous evidence from verbal REC suggested that effect anticipation can be due to conceptual R-E overlap, but there was also phonological overlap (i.e., anticipated reading of a word preceded by the vocal response of saying that very word). To examine the representational basis of REC, in three experiments, we introduced a bilingual R-E mapping to exclude phonological R-E overlap (i.e., in the R-E compatible condition, the translation equivalent of the response word is presented as an effect word in a different language). Our findings show that the REC effect is obtained when presenting the effect word in the same language as the response (i.e., monolingual condition), but the compatibility effect was not found when the semantically same word is presented in a different language, suggesting no conceptually generalized REC in a bilingual setting. (232 words).

Exploring Modality Compatibility in the Response-Effect Compatibility Paradigm.

According to ideomotor theory, action planning is based on anticipatory perceptual representations of action-effects. This aspect of action control has been investigated in studies using the response-effect compatibility (REC) paradigm, in which responses have been shown to be facilitated if ensuing perceptual effects share codes with the response based on dimensional overlap (i.e., REC). Additionally, according to the notion of ideomotor compatibility, certain response-effect (R-E) mappings will be stronger than others because some response features resemble the anticipated sensory response effects more strongly than others (e.g., since vocal responses usually produce auditory effects, an auditory stimulus should be anticipated in a stronger manner following vocal responses rather than following manual responses). Yet, systematic research on this matter is lacking. In the present study, two REC experiments aimed to explore the influence of R-E modality mappings. In Experiment 1, vocal number word responses produced visual effects on the screen (digits vs. number words; i.e., visual-symbolic vs. visual-verbal effect codes). The REC effect was only marginally larger for visual-verbal than for visual-symbolic effects. Using verbal effect codes in Experiment 2, we found that the REC effect was larger with auditory-verbal R-E mapping than with visual-verbal R-E mapping. Overall, the findings support the hypothesis of a role of R-E modality mappings in REC effects, suggesting both further evidence for ideomotor accounts as well as code-specific and modality-specific contributions to effect anticipation.