Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Action effect: An attentional boost of action regardless of medium and semantics

의미적 표상 및 매개체와 무관한 단순 행동의 주의력 증진 효과

  • Dogyun Kim (Department of Psychology, Yonsei University) ;
  • Eunhee Ji (Intelligent Precision Healthcare Research Center, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Min-Shik Kim (Department of Psychology, Yonsei University)
  • 김도균 (연세대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 지은희 (성균관대학교 지능형정밀헬스케어연구소) ;
  • 김민식 (연세대학교 심리학과)
  • Received : 2023.07.04
  • Accepted : 2023.07.14
  • Published : 2023.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Previous research on the action effect had shown how simple action towards a stimulus can enhance the processing of that stimulus in subsequent visual search task (Buttaccio & Hahn, 2011; Weidler & Abrams, 2014). In four experiments, we investigated whether semantic representation of action word can induce the same attentional boost towards that stimulus and whether the type of action performed can modulate the action effect. In experiment 1, we replicated the same experimental paradigm displayed in previous studies. Participants were first shown an action word cue - "go" or "no". When the action cue was "go", participants were to press a designated key, but not to when the action cue was "no". Next, participants performed a visual search task, in which they reported the orientation of a tilted bar. The target could appear on top of the previously shown prime object (valid), or not (invalid). Reaction times (RTs) to the search task were measure for analysis and comparison, and the action effect had been replicated. In experiment 2, participants were instructed to respond with the keyboard for the action task, and to respond with the joystick for the visual search task. In experiment 3, participants were instructed not to press any key on the onset of prime, and then perform the visual search task to isolate the effect of semantic representation. Lastly, in experiment 4, participants were instructed to press separate keys for "go" and "no" on the onset of prime, and then perform the visual search task. Results indicate that semantic representation alone did not modulate the action effect, regardless of type of action and medium of action.

행동 효과(action effect)란, 특정 자극에 대한 단순한 행동이 이후의 시각 탐색 과제에서 해당 자극의 인지적 처리를 향상시키는 효과를 말한다. 본 연구는 행동을 지시하는 단어의 의미적 표상과 실제로 수행하는 행동의 종류가 행동 효과에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 시행되었다. 실험 1은 선행 연구의 실험 패러다임을 반복 검증하였다. 참가자는 화면을 통해 제시되는 "출발" 또는 "정지"의 행동 지시어를 보고 뒤이어 나타나는 원형 자극에 대하여 키보드를 이용해 응답하거나(출발 조건) 응답하지 않았다(정지 조건). 다음으로, 참가자는 한쪽으로 기울어진 선분을 찾아 기울어진 방향을 보고하는 시각 탐색 과제를 수행하였다. 이때 표적 자극은 이전에 제시되었던 원형 자극 위에 나타나거나(타당 조건) 다른 자극 위에 나타날 수 있었다(비타당 조건). 시각 탐색 과제의 반응 속도를 분석한 결과, 선행연구와 동일한 행동 효과(행동 조건과 타당도 조건의 상호작용)를 관찰할 수 있었다. 실험 2에서는 반응 도구 및 물리적 행동의 종류가 상이한 경우에도 행동 효과가 유지되는지 알아보고자 진행되었다. 참가자는 제시되는 행동 지시어에 대하여 키보드를 이용해 응답하였으나, 시각 탐색 과제에서는 조이스틱 방향을 조정함으로써 반응을 보고하였다. 그 결과, 타당도에 따른 주효과 및 행동 효과 모두 유의한 것으로 나타났다. 단어의 의미적 표상이 행동 효과에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위하여, 실험 3에서는 두 행동 조건 모두 반응을 하지 않게 하였고, 실험 4에서는 두 행동조건 모두 각기 다른 키를 사용하여 반응하게 하였다. 그 결과, 두 실험 모두 타당도에 따른 주효과만 유의미했으며 행동 효과는 관측되지 않았다. 실험 3과 실험 4의 결과를 비교 분석한 결과, 실험 유형과 타당도 간의 상호작용이 관찰되었다. 본 연구는 행동 지시어의 의미적 표상만으로는 행동 효과를 야기할 수 없으며, 이중과제 패러다임에서 물리적 반응의 도구 및 종류와 상관없이 행동 효과가 관찰될 수 있다는 점을 시사한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2021S1A5A2A01062955).

References

  1. Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437-443.
  2. Baker, K. S., Mattingley, J. B., Chambers, C. D., & Cunnington, R. (2011). Attention and the readiness for action. Neuropsychologia, 49(12), 3303-3313.
  3. Bloesch, E. K., Davoli, C. C., Roth, N., Brockmole, J. R., & Abrams, R. A. (2012). Watch this! Observed tool use affects perceived distance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 177-183.
  4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
  5. Brascamp, J. W., Blake, R., & Kristjansson, A. (2011). Deciding where to attend: Priming of pop-out drives target selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1700-1707.
  6. Brunia, C. H. (1993). Waiting in readiness: Gating in attention and motor preparation. Psychophysiology, 30(4), 327-339.
  7. Buttaccio, D. R., & Hahn, S. (2011). The influence of action on visual search: Behavioral response toward stimuli modifies the selection process. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(5), 1453-1466.
  8. Carlisle, N. B., Arita, J. T., Pardo, D., & Woodman, G. F. (2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315-9322.
  9. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28-71.
  10. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umilta, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1673-1692.
  11. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222.
  12. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36(12), 1827-1837.
  13. Downing, P. E. (2000). Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychological Science, 11(6), 467-473.
  14. Eimer, M. (2014). The neural basis of attentional control in visual search. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(10), 526-535.
  15. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71(1), 22-29.
  16. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030-1044.
  17. Gladwin, T. E., Lindsen, J. P., & de Jong, R. (2006). Pre-stimulus EEG effects related to response speed, task switching and upcoming response hand. Biological Psychology, 72(1), 15-34.
  18. Han, S., Ji, E., Choe, E., Kim, D., & Kim, M.-S. (2020). Simple action planning can affect attentional allocation in subsequent visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(5), 1014-1024.
  19. Han, S. W., & Kim, M.-S. (2009). Do the contents of working memory capture attention? Yes, but cognitive control matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1292-1302.
  20. Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6(4), 421-427.
  21. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermuller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301-307.
  22. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1-2), 183-216.
  23. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494-500.
  24. Hong, I., Jeong, S. K., & Kim, M.-S. (2022). Implicit learning of A response-contingent task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 84(2), 540-552.
  25. Hwang, B. W., & Kim, M. S. (2016). Implicit learning of a speed-contingent target feature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(3), 803-808.
  26. Ji, E., Lee, K. M., & Kim, M. S. (2017). Independent operation of implicit working memory under cognitive load. Consciousness and Cognition, 55, 214-222.
  27. Johnston, W. A., & Dark, V. J. (1986). Selective attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 37(1), 43-75.
  28. Kristjansson, A., Saevarsson, S., & Driver, J. (2013). The boundary conditions of priming of visual search: From passive viewing through task-relevant working memory load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 514-521.
  29. Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 657-672.
  30. Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G. (1975). Loci of contextual effects on visual word-recognition. In R. M. Shiffin, P. M. A. Rabbitt, & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V. (pp. 98-118). London: Academic Press.
  31. Olivers, C. N., Peters, J., Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 327-334.
  32. Pan, Y., Lin, B., Zhao, Y., & Soto, D. (2014). Working memory biasing of visual perception without awareness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(7), 2051-2062.
  33. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In R. M. Shiffin, P. M. A. Rabbitt, & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V. (pp. 669-682). London: Academic Press.
  34. Pulvermuller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Ilmoniemi, R. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 884-892.
  35. Remington, R. W., Johnston, J. C., & Yantis, S. (1992). Involuntary attentional capture by abrupt onsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(3), 279-290.
  36. Robinson, M. M., Clevenger, J., & Irwin, D. E. (2018). The action is in the task set, not in the action. Cognitive Psychology, 100, 17-42.
  37. Sergent, C., Wyart, V., Babo-Rebelo, M., Cohen, L., Naccache, L., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2013). Cueing attention after the stimulus is gone can retrospectively trigger conscious perception. Current Biology, 23(2), 150-155.
  38. Suh, J., & Abrams, R. A. (2018). Action influences unconscious visual processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 1599-1608.
  39. Thibault, L., Van den Berg, R., Cavanagh, P., & Sergent, C. (2016). Retrospective attention gates discrete conscious access to past sensory stimuli. PloS One, 11(2), e0148504.
  40. Weidler, B. J., & Abrams, R. A. (2014). Decomposing the action effect: How simple actions affect subsequent perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 1242-1252.
  41. Weidler, B. J., & Abrams, R. A. (2016). Simple actions influence pop-out search. Visual Cognition, 24(7-8), 392-405.
  42. Weidler, B. J., & Abrams, R. A. (2018). Simple actions activate semantic associations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1500-1506.
  43. Witt, J. K. (2011). Action's effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201-206.
  44. Wykowska, A., Schubo, A., & Hommel, B. (2009). How you move is what you see: action planning biases selection in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1755-1769.
  45. Xia, Y., Morimoto, Y., & Noguchi, Y. (2016). Retrospective triggering of conscious perception by an interstimulus interaction. Journal of Vision, 16(7):3, 1-8.