What to do and how to do it: action representations in tool use

Research on bimanual coordination has shown that the efficiency of programming an action is determined by the way the action is cognitively represented. In tool use, actions can be represented with respect to the spatial goal of the action (e.g., the nail that is to be hit by a hammer) or with respect to the tool and its transformation (i.e., the function that maps external target locations onto corresponding bodily movements). We investigated whether the way of cuing bimanual actions with tools affects their cognitive representation and the efficiency with which they are programmed. In one group of participants, tool transformations were specified by symbolic cues, whereas the targets were indicated by direct spatial cues. In another group of participants, symbolic cues specified the targets of the tool-use actions, whereas tool transformations were indicated by direct spatial cues. In a third group, both targets and tool transformations were cued directly by spatial cues. It was hypothesized that different cognitive representations would result in more or less efficient programming of the action. Results indicated longer reaction times and a higher error rate in the group with symbolic cuing of the targets as compared to the group with symbolic cuing of the transformations. The latter did not differ much from the direct cuing group. These results suggest that it is more efficient to represent bimanual tool-use actions in terms of the tool transformations involved than in terms of the targets at which they are directed.

[1]  L. Shaffer CHOICE REACTION WITH VARIABLE S-R MAPPING. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  The influence of movement cues on intermanual interactions , 2006, Psychological research.

[3]  J. F. Herbart Psychologie als Wissenschaft : neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik , 1824 .

[4]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  Procedural frameworks for simple arithmetic skills , 1998 .

[5]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Goal-selection and movement-related conflict during bimanual reaching movements. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[6]  W Spijkers,et al.  Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  D E Sherwood,et al.  Time requirements of changes in program and parameter variables in rapid ongoing movements. , 1983, Journal of motor behavior.

[10]  W. Prinz,et al.  Programming tool-use actions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Cristina Massen,et al.  Bimanual interference with compatible and incompatible tool transformations. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[12]  Shaffer Lh,et al.  Some effects of partial advance information on choice reaction with fixed or variable S-R mapping. , 1966 .

[13]  Hans-Leo Teulings,et al.  RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS OF PREPARED AND RESTRUCTURED HANDWRITING , 1983 .

[14]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Mental set and mental arithmetic , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Spatial Compatibility Effects With Tool Use , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[16]  L H Shaffer,et al.  Some effects of partial advance information on choice reaction with fixed or variable S-R mapping. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  D. A. Taylor,et al.  The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  D D Larish,et al.  Influence of stimulus-response translations on response programming: examining the relationship of arm, direction, and extent of movement. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[19]  R. Schmidt A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. , 1975 .

[20]  J. Kelso,et al.  Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (naturalized) conditions. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  W. Prinz,et al.  Activation of action rules in action observation. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  W. Prinz,et al.  Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination , 2001, Nature.

[23]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects? , 2008 .

[24]  Anthony G. Greenwald,et al.  A double stimulation test of ideomotor theory with implications for selective attention. , 1970 .

[25]  Klaus Roth,et al.  Chapter 11 Investigations on the Basis of the Generalized Motor Programme Hypothesis , 1988 .

[26]  W. Prinz,et al.  Movements, actions and tool-use actions: an ideomotor approach to imitation , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  Will Spijkers,et al.  Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: specification interference as revealed by reaction time , 1997 .

[28]  W. Prinz Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[29]  R. Ivry,et al.  Moving to Directly Cued Locations Abolishes Spatial Interference During Bimanual Actions , 2001, Psychological science.

[30]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference , 1992 .

[31]  Cristina Massen Observing human interaction with physical devices , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[32]  Ira H. Bernstein,et al.  Set and temporal integration , 1968 .

[33]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Target-related coupling in bimanual reaching movements , 2007, Psychological research.

[34]  E. Franz,et al.  Goal-related planning constraints in bimanual grasping and placing of objects , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Shaffer Lh CHOICE REACTION WITH VARIABLE S-R MAPPING. , 1965 .