Loading…

Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?

Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Experimental brain research 2023-01, Vol.241 (1), p.135-144
Main Authors: Eichfelder, Lea, Franz, Volker H., Janczyk, Markus
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73
container_end_page 144
container_issue 1
container_start_page 135
container_title Experimental brain research
container_volume 241
creator Eichfelder, Lea
Franz, Volker H.
Janczyk, Markus
description Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of these effects will automatically activate the associated motor pattern. R-E learning is typically investigated with (induction) experiments that comprise an acquisition phase, where R-E associations are presumably learned, and a subsequent test phase, where the previous effects serve as stimuli for a response. While most studies used stimuli in the test phase that were identical to the effects in the acquisition phase, one study reported generalization from exemplars to their superordinate category (Hommel et al., Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003, Exp. 1). However, studies on so-called R-E compatibility did not report such generalization. We aimed to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 of Hommel et al. (Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003) with a free-choice test phase. While we did observe effects consistent with R-E learning when the effects in the acquisition phase were identical to the stimuli in the test phase, we did not observe evidence for generalization. We discuss this with regard to recent studies suggesting that individual response biases might rather reflect rapidly inferred propositional knowledge instead of learned R-E associations.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00221-022-06473-w
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9870827</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A734415465</galeid><sourcerecordid>A734415465</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kl1rFDEUhoModlv9A17IgCD1Ymq-JpncKEvxY6Eg-HEdMpkzMymzyZrMWPXXm3Fr2xWRwAkned43yclB6AnBZwRj-TJhTCkpcyix4JKVV_fQinBGS0KwuI9WGBNe8pqoI3Sc0uWSMokfoiMmmOKVYiu03qRiGiBCMTiIJtrBWTMWPficje6nmVzwhfNFhLQLPkEJXQd2KkYw0Tvfv36EHnRmTPD4ej5BX96--Xz-vrz48G5zvr4obaXwVFLS0oYJo6SwkreECtVUHZG1lLwxTaOwsKazohUgSVUxWVHVGNOyRnYNs5KdoFd7393cbKG14Kd8Q72LbmviDx2M04c73g26D9-0qiWu6WJwem0Qw9cZ0qS3LlkYR-MhzElnRHJJGK0y-uwv9DLM0efnZUrUlawpVbdUb0bQznchn2sXU72WjHNScbF4nf2DyqOFrbPBQ-fy-oHgxYEgMxN8n3ozp6Q3nz4ess_vsAOYcRpSGOfl19IhSPegjSGlCN1N4QjWSzfpfTfpHPTvbtJXWfT0bslvJH_aJwNsD6S85XuIt3X6j-0vpSzS3w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2768578229</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?</title><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Eichfelder, Lea ; Franz, Volker H. ; Janczyk, Markus</creator><creatorcontrib>Eichfelder, Lea ; Franz, Volker H. ; Janczyk, Markus</creatorcontrib><description>Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of these effects will automatically activate the associated motor pattern. R-E learning is typically investigated with (induction) experiments that comprise an acquisition phase, where R-E associations are presumably learned, and a subsequent test phase, where the previous effects serve as stimuli for a response. While most studies used stimuli in the test phase that were identical to the effects in the acquisition phase, one study reported generalization from exemplars to their superordinate category (Hommel et al., Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003, Exp. 1). However, studies on so-called R-E compatibility did not report such generalization. We aimed to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 of Hommel et al. (Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003) with a free-choice test phase. While we did observe effects consistent with R-E learning when the effects in the acquisition phase were identical to the stimuli in the test phase, we did not observe evidence for generalization. We discuss this with regard to recent studies suggesting that individual response biases might rather reflect rapidly inferred propositional knowledge instead of learned R-E associations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-4819</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1106</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00221-022-06473-w</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36394593</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Bias ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Brain research ; Cognition ; Experiments ; Generalization, Psychological ; Human influences ; Humans ; Learning - physiology ; Learning strategies ; Motor skill learning ; Neurology ; Neurosciences ; Research Article ; Response bias</subject><ispartof>Experimental brain research, 2023-01, Vol.241 (1), p.135-144</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s).</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1631-5037 ; 0000-0002-9958-3220 ; 0000-0002-8457-0611</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2768578229/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2768578229?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,21394,27924,27925,33611,33612,43733,74221</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36394593$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eichfelder, Lea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franz, Volker H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janczyk, Markus</creatorcontrib><title>Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?</title><title>Experimental brain research</title><addtitle>Exp Brain Res</addtitle><addtitle>Exp Brain Res</addtitle><description>Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of these effects will automatically activate the associated motor pattern. R-E learning is typically investigated with (induction) experiments that comprise an acquisition phase, where R-E associations are presumably learned, and a subsequent test phase, where the previous effects serve as stimuli for a response. While most studies used stimuli in the test phase that were identical to the effects in the acquisition phase, one study reported generalization from exemplars to their superordinate category (Hommel et al., Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003, Exp. 1). However, studies on so-called R-E compatibility did not report such generalization. We aimed to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 of Hommel et al. (Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003) with a free-choice test phase. While we did observe effects consistent with R-E learning when the effects in the acquisition phase were identical to the stimuli in the test phase, we did not observe evidence for generalization. We discuss this with regard to recent studies suggesting that individual response biases might rather reflect rapidly inferred propositional knowledge instead of learned R-E associations.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Generalization, Psychological</subject><subject>Human influences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learning - physiology</subject><subject>Learning strategies</subject><subject>Motor skill learning</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Response bias</subject><issn>0014-4819</issn><issn>1432-1106</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kl1rFDEUhoModlv9A17IgCD1Ymq-JpncKEvxY6Eg-HEdMpkzMymzyZrMWPXXm3Fr2xWRwAkned43yclB6AnBZwRj-TJhTCkpcyix4JKVV_fQinBGS0KwuI9WGBNe8pqoI3Sc0uWSMokfoiMmmOKVYiu03qRiGiBCMTiIJtrBWTMWPficje6nmVzwhfNFhLQLPkEJXQd2KkYw0Tvfv36EHnRmTPD4ej5BX96--Xz-vrz48G5zvr4obaXwVFLS0oYJo6SwkreECtVUHZG1lLwxTaOwsKazohUgSVUxWVHVGNOyRnYNs5KdoFd7393cbKG14Kd8Q72LbmviDx2M04c73g26D9-0qiWu6WJwem0Qw9cZ0qS3LlkYR-MhzElnRHJJGK0y-uwv9DLM0efnZUrUlawpVbdUb0bQznchn2sXU72WjHNScbF4nf2DyqOFrbPBQ-fy-oHgxYEgMxN8n3ozp6Q3nz4ess_vsAOYcRpSGOfl19IhSPegjSGlCN1N4QjWSzfpfTfpHPTvbtJXWfT0bslvJH_aJwNsD6S85XuIt3X6j-0vpSzS3w</recordid><startdate>20230101</startdate><enddate>20230101</enddate><creator>Eichfelder, Lea</creator><creator>Franz, Volker H.</creator><creator>Janczyk, Markus</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1631-5037</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-3220</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8457-0611</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230101</creationdate><title>Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?</title><author>Eichfelder, Lea ; Franz, Volker H. ; Janczyk, Markus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Generalization, Psychological</topic><topic>Human influences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learning - physiology</topic><topic>Learning strategies</topic><topic>Motor skill learning</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Response bias</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eichfelder, Lea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franz, Volker H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janczyk, Markus</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Science (Gale in Context)</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Science Journals</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Experimental brain research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eichfelder, Lea</au><au>Franz, Volker H.</au><au>Janczyk, Markus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?</atitle><jtitle>Experimental brain research</jtitle><stitle>Exp Brain Res</stitle><addtitle>Exp Brain Res</addtitle><date>2023-01-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>241</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>135</spage><epage>144</epage><pages>135-144</pages><issn>0014-4819</issn><eissn>1432-1106</eissn><abstract>Ideomotor theory is an influential approach to understand goal-directed behavior. In this framework, response-effect (R-E) learning is assumed as a prerequisite for voluntary action: Once associations between motor actions and their effects in the environment have been formed, the anticipation of these effects will automatically activate the associated motor pattern. R-E learning is typically investigated with (induction) experiments that comprise an acquisition phase, where R-E associations are presumably learned, and a subsequent test phase, where the previous effects serve as stimuli for a response. While most studies used stimuli in the test phase that were identical to the effects in the acquisition phase, one study reported generalization from exemplars to their superordinate category (Hommel et al., Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003, Exp. 1). However, studies on so-called R-E compatibility did not report such generalization. We aimed to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 of Hommel et al. (Vis Cogn 10:965–986, 2003) with a free-choice test phase. While we did observe effects consistent with R-E learning when the effects in the acquisition phase were identical to the stimuli in the test phase, we did not observe evidence for generalization. We discuss this with regard to recent studies suggesting that individual response biases might rather reflect rapidly inferred propositional knowledge instead of learned R-E associations.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>36394593</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00221-022-06473-w</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1631-5037</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-3220</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8457-0611</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0014-4819
ispartof Experimental brain research, 2023-01, Vol.241 (1), p.135-144
issn 0014-4819
1432-1106
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9870827
source Social Science Premium Collection; Springer Link
subjects Analysis
Bias
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biomedicine
Brain research
Cognition
Experiments
Generalization, Psychological
Human influences
Humans
Learning - physiology
Learning strategies
Motor skill learning
Neurology
Neurosciences
Research Article
Response bias
title Is there hierarchical generalization in response-effect learning?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T13%3A15%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20there%20hierarchical%20generalization%20in%20response-effect%20learning?&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20brain%20research&rft.au=Eichfelder,%20Lea&rft.date=2023-01-01&rft.volume=241&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=135&rft.epage=144&rft.pages=135-144&rft.issn=0014-4819&rft.eissn=1432-1106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00221-022-06473-w&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA734415465%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-21d2b36a976c74d1269b5f178774babb906cafc6d6e715537529baad3b7fb3c73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2768578229&rft_id=info:pmid/36394593&rft_galeid=A734415465&rfr_iscdi=true