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 is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
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
Bach-y-Rita P, Collins C, Saunders F, White B, Scadden L (1969) Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature 221:963–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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