Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
| Τίτλος: |
The role of time in action control: Evidence against anticipation of action-effect intervals and a possible motivational account for delayed-effect costs. |
| Συγγραφείς: |
Janczyk M; Department of Psychology, University of Bremen., Dignath D; Department of Psychology, Eberhard Karls University of Tubingen. |
| Πηγή: |
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition [J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn] 2026 Sep; Vol. 52 (9), pp. 1596-1608. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Dec 08. |
| Τύπος έκδοσης: |
Journal Article |
| Γλώσσα: |
English |
| Στοιχεία περιοδικού: |
Publisher: American Psychological Association Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8207540 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1939-1285 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02787393 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): |
Original Publication: Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association, [c1982- |
| Ιατρικοί όροι (MeSH): |
Motivation*/physiology , Anticipation, Psychological*/physiology , Psychomotor Performance*/physiology , Time Perception*/physiology, Reaction Time/physiology ; Humans ; Time Factors ; Female ; Male ; Young Adult |
| Περίληψη: |
The ideomotor principle states that actions are selected by anticipating their effects. An abundance of empirical results supports this contention, but whether the effect of an action is delayed by an interval of a particular duration has mostly been a procedural detail in such studies. We will refer to this generically as an action-effect (A-E) delay. Few studies explicitly addressed the interval and its duration and concluded that its duration is a distinct feature of the effect and seems to be anticipated as well: Response times are longer when the interval is predictably longer relative to when it is shorter; hence, we observe delayed-effect costs. We here question this conclusion because the duration of the A-E interval and the total trial duration were confounded in all previous studies on that topic. Experiment 1 dissociated both features by manipulating either the A-E interval, the intertrial interval, or both in a negatively correlated way, yielding the same total trial duration. Results favor the hypothesis that the total trial duration is key to the delayed-effect costs. Experiment 2 manipulated whether participants focus on the effect, and hence the A-E interval duration, or the next fixation cross, and hence the total trial duration. Results again favor the importance of the total trial duration. As a consequence, previous interpretations should be reconsidered, and we here put forward an alternative motivational account as a more general explanation for delayed-effect costs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved). |
| Entry Date(s): |
Date Created: 20251208 Date Completed: 20260806 Latest Revision: 20260806 |
| Update Code: |
20260807 |
| DOI: |
10.1037/xlm0001560 |
| PMID: |
41359597 |
| Βάση Δεδομένων: |
MEDLINE |