Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- Blickbewegung (2) (remove)
Institute
- Institut für Psychologie (2) (remove)
Humans use their eyes not only as visual input devices to perceive the environment, but also as an action tool in order to generate intended effects in their environment. For instance, glances are used to direct someone else's attention to a place of interest, indicating that gaze control is an important part of social communication. Previous research on gaze control in a social context mainly focused on the gaze recipient by asking how humans respond to perceived gaze (gaze cueing). So far, this perspective has hardly considered the actor’s point of view by neglecting to investigate what mental processes are involved when actors decide to perform an eye movement to trigger a gaze response in another person. Furthermore, eye movements are also used to affect the non-social environment, for instance when unlocking the smartphone with the help of the eyes. This and other observations demonstrate the necessity to consider gaze control in contexts other than social communication whilst at the same time focusing on commonalities and differences inherent to the nature of a social (vs. non-social) action context. Thus, the present work explores the cognitive mechanisms that control such goal-oriented eye movements in both social and non-social contexts.
The experiments presented throughout this work are built on pre-established paradigms from both the oculomotor research domain and from basic cognitive psychology. These paradigms are based on the principle of ideomotor action control, which provides an explanatory framework for understanding how goal-oriented, intentional actions come into being. The ideomotor idea suggests that humans acquire associations between their actions and the resulting effects, which can be accessed in a bi-directional manner: Actions can trigger anticipations of their effects, but the anticipated resulting effects can also trigger the associated actions. According to ideomotor theory, action generation involves the mental anticipation of the intended effect (i.e., the action goal) to activate the associated motor pattern. The present experiments involve situations where participants control the gaze of a virtual face via their eye movements. The triggered gaze responses of the virtual face are consistent to the participant’s eye movements, representing visual action effects. Experimental situations are varied with respect to determinants of action-effect learning (e.g., contingency, contiguity, action mode during acquisition) in order to unravel the underlying dynamics of oculomotor control in these situations. In addition to faces, conditions involving changes in non-social objects were included to address the question of whether mechanisms underlying gaze control differ for social versus non-social context situations.
The results of the present work can be summarized into three major findings. 1. My data suggest that humans indeed acquire bi-directional associations between their eye movements and the subsequently perceived gaze response of another person, which in turn affect oculomotor action control via the anticipation of the intended effects. The observed results show for the first time that eye movements in a gaze-interaction scenario are represented in terms of their gaze response in others. This observation is in line with the ideomotor theory of action control. 2. The present series of experiments confirms and extends pioneering results of Huestegge and Kreutzfeldt (2012) with respect to the significant influence of action effects in gaze control. I have shown that the results of Huestegge and Kreutzfeldt (2012) can be replicated across different contexts with different stimulus material given that the perceived action effects were sufficiently salient. 3. Furthermore, I could show that mechanisms of gaze control in a social gaze-interaction context do not appear to be qualitatively different from those in a non-social context.
All in all, the results support recent theoretical claims emphasizing the role of anticipation-based action control in social interaction. Moreover, my results suggest that anticipation-based gaze control in a social context is based on the same general psychological mechanisms as ideomotor gaze control, and thus should be considered as an integral part rather than as a special form of ideomotor gaze control.
Cross-Modal Action Control
(2016)
Nowadays, multitasking is ubiquitously discussed within many different scientific disciplines. The present work addressed multitasking from the perspective of cognitive behavioural sciences by investigating the role of conflict resolution processes that arise during the requirements of multiple-action control. More specifically, the present work focuses on cognitive mechanisms in the case of cross-modal action control, which involves the performance of two actions in different effector systems. One aim was to broaden the scope of action modalities typically considered in the literature by studying oculomotor responses (i.e. saccades) – an action modality that has been largely neglected in previous research – in combination with responses in other effector systems (i.e. manual and vocal responses). A further aim was to specify the mechanisms of crosstalk as an explanatory concept referring to the action content, which is particularly relevant since cross-modal actions usually differ regarding their response characteristics. The present work comprises four studies (each involving two or three experiments).
In Study A, cross-modal response compounds based on a single stimulus were studied with respect to the interplay of the presence of response alternatives and between-response compatibility (i.e. crosstalk potential). In three experiments, this study showed that crosstalk can be dissociated into a component that determines the amount of current conflict (i.e. online crosstalk) and a memory-based component that originates either from residual activation of previous action demands (retrospective crosstalk) or from preparation for future demands (prospective crosstalk).
Study B provided first evidence that oculomotor responses are subject to interference based on both structural and content-based origins. In three experiments, an overlapping tasks paradigm was employed in which the onsets between two stimuli that triggered oculomotor and manual responses were varied. Evidence for both serial and parallel processing of the two tasks was found. The results further indicated that based on the between-task compatibility participants shifted between these processing modes, i.e. to more parallel processing during compatible task demands and to more serial processing during incompatible task demands.
Study C examined processing priorities among effector systems and demonstrated in two experiments that the previously reported prioritisation scheme, in which the oculomotor system is prioritised over the vocal and manual effector system, can be replicated, but is also adjusted in its strength by the presence of response conflict. Specifically, processing priorities were shifted towards the response that already is involved in conflict resolution (in terms of stimulus-response compatibility), suggesting that processing priorities can be flexibly adapted to particular task demands.
Study D addressed response order control in dual tasks, an issue that has been widely neglected in previous research. In a comprehensive study of three experiments including several factors that are known to be relevant for dual-task interference mechanisms, it was shown that the final response order in a given trial is the result of a continuous adjustment process based on the interplay of several top-down factors, such as the anticipation of response characteristics, and bottom-up factors, such as stimulus order and between-task compatibility.
In summary, the present work advances the theoretical understanding of complex action control by providing a cross-modal action perspective, by proposing mechanisms for effector-system prioritisation and response order control, and by proposing a novel taxonomy of crosstalk as an overarching framework for interference mechanisms in multiple-response control.