The search result changed since you submitted your search request. Documents might be displayed in a different sort order.
  • search hit 29 of 564
Back to Result List

Dual-action benefits: global (action-inherent) and local (transient) sources of action prepotency underlying inhibition failures in multiple action control

Please always quote using this URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324893
  • Previous research has shown that the simultaneous execution of two actions (instead of only one) is not necessarily more difficult but can actually be easier (less error-prone), in particular when executing one action requires the simultaneous inhibition of another action. Corresponding inhibitory demands are particularly challenging when the to-be-inhibited action is highly prepotent (i.e., characterized by a strong urge to be executed). Here, we study a range of important potential sources of such prepotency. Building on a previouslyPrevious research has shown that the simultaneous execution of two actions (instead of only one) is not necessarily more difficult but can actually be easier (less error-prone), in particular when executing one action requires the simultaneous inhibition of another action. Corresponding inhibitory demands are particularly challenging when the to-be-inhibited action is highly prepotent (i.e., characterized by a strong urge to be executed). Here, we study a range of important potential sources of such prepotency. Building on a previously established paradigm to elicit dual-action benefits, participants responded to stimuli with single actions (either manual button press or saccade) or dual actions (button press and saccade). Crucially, we compared blocks in which these response demands were randomly intermixed (mixed blocks) with pure blocks involving only one type of response demand. The results highlight the impact of global (action-inherent) sources of action prepotency, as reflected in more pronounced inhibitory failures in saccade vs. manual control, but also more local (transient) sources of influence, as reflected in a greater probability of inhibition failures following trials that required the to-be-inhibited type of action. In addition, sequential analyses revealed that inhibitory control (including its failure) is exerted at the level of response modality representations, not at the level of fully specified response representations. In sum, the study highlights important preconditions and mechanisms underlying the observation of dual-action benefits.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author: Jens KürtenORCiD, Tim Raettig, Julian Gutzeit, Lynn Huestegge
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324893
Document Type:Journal article
Faculties:Fakultät für Humanwissenschaften (Philos., Psycho., Erziehungs- u. Gesell.-Wissensch.) / Institut für Psychologie
Language:English
Parent Title (English):Psychological Research
Year of Completion:2023
Volume:87
Issue:2
Pagenumber:410-424
Source:Psychological Research (2023) 87:2, 410-424. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-022-01672-0
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01672-0
Dewey Decimal Classification:1 Philosophie und Psychologie / 15 Psychologie / 150 Psychologie
Tag:action prepotency; dual action benefits; global (action-inherent); inhibition failures; local (transient); multiple action control
Release Date:2024/03/06
Licence (German):License LogoCC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International