Dual-action benefits: global (action-inherent) and local (transient) sources of action prepotency underlying inhibition failures in multiple action control
Zitieren Sie bitte immer diese 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.…
Autor(en): | Jens KürtenORCiD, Tim Raettig, Julian Gutzeit, Lynn Huestegge |
---|---|
URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324893 |
Dokumentart: | Artikel / Aufsatz in einer Zeitschrift |
Institute der Universität: | Fakultät für Humanwissenschaften (Philos., Psycho., Erziehungs- u. Gesell.-Wissensch.) / Institut für Psychologie |
Sprache der Veröffentlichung: | Englisch |
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes / der Zeitschrift (Englisch): | Psychological Research |
Erscheinungsjahr: | 2023 |
Band / Jahrgang: | 87 |
Heft / Ausgabe: | 2 |
Seitenangabe: | 410-424 |
Originalveröffentlichung / Quelle: | Psychological Research (2023) 87:2, 410-424. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-022-01672-0 |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01672-0 |
Allgemeine fachliche Zuordnung (DDC-Klassifikation): | 1 Philosophie und Psychologie / 15 Psychologie / 150 Psychologie |
Freie Schlagwort(e): | action prepotency; dual action benefits; global (action-inherent); inhibition failures; local (transient); multiple action control |
Datum der Freischaltung: | 06.03.2024 |
Lizenz (Deutsch): | CC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International |