Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32086662›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2020

The impact of the verbal instruction and task characteristics on effect-based action control.

Diana Vogel, Matthias Rudolf, Stefan Scherbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Diana VogelDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062, Dresden, Germany. diana.vogel@tu-dresden.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9674-3874
Matthias RudolfDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062, Dresden, Germany.
Stefan ScherbaumDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SCH1827/11Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 940/2 2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to ideomotor theory, when people perform a movement and observe its subsequent effect, they acquire a bidirectional action-effect association. If at a later point they want to produce the effect, its anticipation activates and allows executing the corresponding action. In ideomotor induction tasks, several task characteristics determine whether participants use the experimentally induced action-effect associations to pre-activate the corresponding actions. Here, we assess the impact of the verbal instruction, the task relevance of the effect stimuli and the presentation of post-response effects on the expression of action-effect associations. The results show that an instruction stressing the stimulus-effect correspondence prompts participants to utilize the presented effects more than an instruction stressing the stimulus-response correspondence. Furthermore, the induced action-effect associations were only expressed when the effects were relevant for the task and when post-response effects were presented in the test phase. These findings show the importance of the particular task construction for the expression of the experimentally manipulated action-effect knowledge.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceAcoustic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansKnowledgeMaleMovementReaction TimeAction controlAction-effect associationEffect-based action controlIdeomotor theoryInstructionTask characteristics

Identifiers

PMID32086662
PMCPMC7203581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.