Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wahrnehmung und Handlung

  • Chapter
Book cover Handlungspsychologie

Part of the book series: Springer-Lehrbuch ((SLB))

  • 6138 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

  • Was ist die Beziehung zwischen Wahrnehmung und Handlung?

  • Beruht Wahrnehmen und Handeln auf der Verarbeitung derselben Information?

  • Welchen Einfluss hat die Wahrnehmung auf die Handlung?

  • Welchen Einfluss hat die Handlung auf die Wahrnehmung?

  • Wie lässt sich die Interaktion zwischen Wahrnehmung und Handlung theoretisch erklären?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Weiterführende Literatur

  • Goodale, M. A. & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67, 181–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. (1993). Vorhersage und Erkenntnis. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G. & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC). A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches(pp. 167–201). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokio: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, A. & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68,176–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Literatur

  • Ach, N. (1910). Über den Willensakt und das Temperament. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5,679–685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balint, R. (1909). Seelenlähmung des ›Schauens‹, optische Ataxie, räumliche Störung der Aufmerksamkeit. Monatschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, 25, 51–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, F. L. (1993). Perceptual and cognitive spatial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 517–530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, F. L. (1999). Keeping perception accurate. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, E. & Smeets, J. B. J. (1996). Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object. Experimental Brain Research, 111, 473–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B., Kirch, M. & Sperling, A. (1981). Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion. Perception and Psychophysics, 29, 336–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1944). Distal focussing of perception. Size constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychological Monographs, 56(254), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D. & Huston, T. A. (1994). Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (eds.), Attention and performance, vol. XV(pp. 453–456). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G. & Umiltà, C. A. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1673–1692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R., Wierda, M., Mulder, B. & Mulder, L. J. M. (1988). The use of partial information in response processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 682–692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoe, E. A. & Van Essen, D. C. (1988). Concurrent processing streams in monkey visual cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 11, 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eimer, M. (1997). The lateralized readiness potential as an online measure of automatic response activation in S-R compatibility situations. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility(pp. 41–73). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eimer, M. & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activations: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24,1737–1747.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, B. & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagioli, S., Hommel, B. & Schubotz, R.I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71, 22–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M. & Deiniger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(6), 483–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M. & Seeger, C. M. (1953) S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentilucci, M., Chieffi, S., Daprati, E., Saetti, M. C. & Toni, I. (1996). Visual illusion and action. Neuropsychologia, 34, 369–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 3–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, S. & Dixon, P. (2002). Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: Support for a planning/control model of action. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 266–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, M. A. & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15, 20–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, M. A., Milner, A. D., Jakobson, L. S. & Carey, D. P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349, 154–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideomotor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D. M. & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person's action. Current Biology, 14,493–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior.New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1926). Ding und Medium. Symposion, 1, 109–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmholtz, H. (1866). Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik, vol. 3. Hamburg: Voss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55,270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2006). How we do what we want: A neuro-cognitive perspective on human action planning. In R. J. Jorna, W. van Wezel & A. Meystel (eds.), Planning in intelligent systems: Aspects, motivations and methods(pp. 27–56). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In B. J. Bruya (ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action(pp. 121–140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. & Müsseler, J. (2006). Action-feature integration blinds to feature overlapping perceptual events: Evidence from manual and vocal actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G. & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC). A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. & Prinz, W. (eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus- response compatibility. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishimura, G. & Shimojo, S. (1994). Voluntary action captures visual motion. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, 35, 1275.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology.New York: Holt.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, I. (1951). Über Aufbau und Wandlungen der Wahrnehmungswelt, insbesondere über »bedingte Empfindungen«.Wien: Rohrer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T. & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253– 270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67, 153–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W. (2006). Antezedente Effektrepräsentationen in der Verhaltenssteuerung. Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Koch, I. & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation and execution of actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A,87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacquaniti, F., Terzuolo, C. & Viviani, P. (1983). The law relating the kinematic and figural aspects of drawing movements. Acta Psychologica, 54,115–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lotze, R. H. (1852). Medicinische Psychologie oder die Physiologie der Seele.Leipzig: Weidmann´sche Buchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, N. F. (1962). Direction-or-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics, 5, 357–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mashhour, M. (1964). Psychophysical relations in the perception of velocity. Stockholm: Almquist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merigan, W. H. & Maunsell, J. H. (1993). How parallel are the primate visual pathways? Annual Review of Neuroscience, 16, 369–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. D. & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münsterberg, H. (1888). Die Willenshandlung. Ein Beitrag zur physiologischen Psychologie. Freiburg: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müsseler, J. & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches(pp. 167– 201). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokio: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (1992). Why don't we perceive our brain states? EuropeanJournal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W. & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principle: Data, theory, and application.Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H. C. (1966). Scaling subjective velocity, distance, and duration. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runeson, S. (1974). Constant velocity – not perceived as such. Psychological Research, 38, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubotz, R. I. & von Cramon, D. Y. (2003). Functional-anatomical concepts on human premotor cortex: Evidence from fMRI and PET studies. NeuroImage, 20, 120–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, W., Leuthold, H. & Hermanutz, M. (1993). Covert effects of alcohol revealed by event-related potentials. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, A. & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68,176–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoet, G. & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625– 1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratton, G. M. (1896). Some preliminary experiments on vision without inversion of the retinal image Psychological Review, 3, 611–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungerleider, L. & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale & R. J. W. Mansfield (eds.), Analysis of visual behavior(pp. 549–586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Donkelaar, P. (1999). Pointing movements are effected by size-contrast illusions. Experimental Brain Research, 125, 517–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Essen, D. C. & DeYoe, E. A. (1995). Concurrent processing in the primate visual cortex. In M.S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The cognitive neurosciences(pp. 383–400). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viviani, P. & Stucchi, N. (1989). The effect of movement velocity on form perception: Geometric illusions in dynamic displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viviani, P. & Terzuolo, C. A. (1982). Trajectory determines movement dynamics. Neuroscience, 7, 431–437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wühr, P. & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260– 1270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology Cognitive Psychology Unit, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333, AK Leiden, Niederlande

    Professor Dr. Bernhard Hommel

  2. Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489, Berlin

    Dr. Dieter Nattkemper

Authors
  1. Professor Dr. Bernhard Hommel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Dieter Nattkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hommel, B., Nattkemper, D. (2011). Wahrnehmung und Handlung. In: Handlungspsychologie. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12858-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation