Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 4, pp 1219–1223 | Cite as

When the vibrations allow for anticipating the force to be produced: an extend to Pfister et al. (2014)

  • Guillaume Thébault
  • Arthur-Henri Michalland
  • Vincent Derozier
  • Stéphane Chabrier
  • Denis Brouillet
Letter to the Editor


According to the ideomotor theory, action selection is done by the mental anticipation of its perceptual consequences. If the distal information processed mainly by vision and hearing are considered essential for the representation of the action, the proximal information processed by the sense of touch and proprioception is of less importance. Recent works seem to show the opposite. Nevertheless, it is necessary to complete these results by offering a situation, more ecological, where response and effect can occur on the same effector. So, the goal of our work was to implement a more relevant spatial correspondence because to touch is not the same action that to hear or to see. To do so, participants pressed a specific key after the presentation of a stimulus. The key vibrated depending on the pressure exerted on it. In a compatible condition, high pressure on a key triggered a high vibration, while in an incompatible condition high pressure triggered a low vibration on the same effectors. As expected, the response times were faster in the compatible condition than the incompatible condition. This means that proximal information participates actively in the selection of action.


Action Anticipation Tactile effects Body Ideomotor theory 



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


  1. Auvray M, Hanneton S, Lenay C, O’Regan JK (2005) There is something out there: distal attribution in sensory substitution, twenty years later. J Integr Neurosci 4:505–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach-y-Rita P, Collins C, Saunders F, White B, Scadden L (1969) Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature 221:963–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Badets A, Koch I, Philipp AM (2014) A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychol Res 80:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard C, Roll R, Roll JP, Kavounoudias A (2013) Differential contributions of vision, touch and muscle proprioception to the coding of hand movements. PloS One 8:e62475CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Camus T, Brouillet D, Brunel L (2016) Assessing the functional role of motor response during the integration process. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 42:1693–1702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Camus T, Hommel B, Brunel L, Brouillet T (2017) From anticipation to integration: the role of integrated action–effects in building sensorimotor contingencies. Psychon Bull Rev. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijkerman HC, De Haan EH (2007) Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behav Brain Sci 30:189–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Elsner B, Hommel B (2001) Effect anticipation and action control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:229–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Elsner B, Hommel B (2004) Contiguity and contingency in action–effect learning. Psychol Res 68:138–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gapenne O (2014) The co-constitution of the self and the world: action and proprioceptive coupling. Front Psychol 5:594CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwald AG (1970) Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychol Rev 77:73–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel B (2009) Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychol Res 73:512–526CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hommel B, Müsseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. James W (1890) The principles of psychology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kavounoudias A, Roll JP, Anton JL, Nazarian B, Roth M, Roll R (2008) Proprio-tactile integration for kinesthetic perception: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 46:567–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kunde W (2001) Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 27:387–394Google Scholar
  18. Kunde W, Koch I, Hoffmann J (2004) Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. Q J Exp Psychol 57:87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lotze HR (1852) Medicinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele [Medical psychology or the physiology of the mind]. Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  20. Osiurak F, Badets A (2014) Pliers, not fingers: tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition 130:66–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfister R, Kunde W (2013) Dissecting the response in response–effect compatibility. Exp Brain Res 224:647–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pfister R, Janczyk M, Gressmann M, Fournier LR, Kunde W (2014) Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control. Exp Brain Res 232:847–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Shin YK, Proctor RW, Capaldi EJ (2010) A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychol Bull 136:943–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stillman BC (2002) Making sense of proprioception: the meaning of proprioception, kinaesthesia and related terms. Physiotherapy 8:667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ten Hoopen G, Akerboom S, Raaymakers E (1982) Vibrotactual choice reaction time, tactile receptor systems and ideomotor compatibility. Acta Psychol 50:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Wirth R, Pfister R, Brandes J, Kunde W (2016) Stroking me softly: body-related effects in effect-based action control. Atten Percept Psychophys 78:1755–1770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSERM, UMR1059 SAINBIOSE, Univ Jean-Monnet, Univ LyonSaint-ÉtienneFrance
  2. 2.Université Paul Valéry Montpellier III, Univ Montpellier, Laboratory Epsylon EA4556MontpellierFrance
  3. 3.CNRS-UM, LIRMM, Interactive Digital HumansMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Institut Mines Télécom–Mines Alès–Euromov Université de MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  5. 5.CHU Saint-Étienne, French Centre for Paediatric Stroke/Paediatric Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Department, INSERM CIC1408Saint-ÉtienneFrance

Personalised recommendations