{"id":{"repo_id":"qucosa-diss","oai_identifier":"oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:24845"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/qucosa-diss/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:24845","repository":{"repo_id":"qucosa-diss","name":"QUCOSA","base_url":"http://www.qucosa.de/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Unconscious priming of "freely" chosen voluntary actions: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence","abstract":"In the course of development organisms learn to associate their actions with the effects these actions have in the environment. Recent studies have shown that perceiving or anticipating action-effects automatically activates actions, which formerly have been experienced to cause these effects (Elsner & Hommel, 2001). Using subliminal priming paradigms and electrophysiological measures I investigated whether subliminally (i.e., not consciously perceivable) presented action-effects can automatically activate associated actions and if so, whether this response priming by action-effects can bias free-choice actions. Secondly I investigated whether action-effects with different emotional valences influence response selection differently. To address the first question three experiments were performed. Each experiment consisted of two experimental phases. The first phase, the acquisition-phase, was a learning phase were simple key-press actions were associated with simple visual stimuli (i.e., action-effects; diamond or square) that were contingent on the actions. Immediately after the acquisition-phase the test-phase followed, in which participants performed free-choice actions after the presentation of a Go-signal. In Experiments 2 and 3 a NoGo-signal indicating that responses had to be withheld could appear with the same likelihood as the Go-signal. Unknown to the participants, one of the former action-effects (diamond or square) was presented subliminally prior to each Go- and NoGo-signal to investigate the influence of unconscious action-effects on response selection. Taken together, the results of the test-phases provided strong evidence that even subliminally presented (i.e., unconscious) action-effects can automatically activate associated responses. The response priming by action-effects became evident in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological indicator of specific response activation processes. Under certain circumstanced this automatic response activation can bias free-choice actions although participants experienced the actions as freely chosen. In the test-phase of the first experiment more acquisition-phase-consistent than –inconsistent responses were chosen. If, for instance, a left key-press had been associated with a square during the acquisition-phase, the left key was chosen significantly more often after the subliminal presentation of a square in the test-phase. At least three factors seemed to influence which responses were chosen and executed: The strength of the priming effect, the complexity of the task (i.e., pure Go-blocks or intermixed Go/NoGo-blocks), and the elapsed time between the prime stimulus and the Go-signal. To address the second question simple key-press actions were linked to action-effects with different emotional valences (positive vs. negative pictures accompanied by high or low tones) during the acquisition-phase. In the subsequent test-phase, the effects-tones that had been associated with negative or positive pictures were presented and followed by a Go-signal, after which participants had to freely choose to press one of the two response keys. Results indicated that the anticipation of the emotional valence of an action-effect influenced free-choice action. Whereas the effect-tones induced a clear response bias (i.e., more acquisition-consistent than –inconsistent key-choices) if they had been associated with a positive emotional valence, this response bias was not reliable for action-effects associated with negative emotional features. In summary, the present results provide further proof for ideomotor theories of action control (James, 1890; Elsner & Hommel, 2001) which state that actions are automatically activated by anticipating their consequences.","abstract_html":"In the course of development organisms learn to associate their actions with the effects these actions have in the environment. Recent studies have shown that perceiving or anticipating action-effects automatically activates actions, which formerly have been experienced to cause these effects (Elsner & Hommel, 2001). Using subliminal priming paradigms and electrophysiological measures I investigated whether subliminally (i.e., not consciously perceivable) presented action-effects can automatically activate associated actions and if so, whether this response priming by action-effects can bias free-choice actions. Secondly I investigated whether action-effects with different emotional valences influence response selection differently. To address the first question three experiments were performed. Each experiment consisted of two experimental phases. The first phase, the acquisition-phase, was a learning phase were simple key-press actions were associated with simple visual stimuli (i.e., action-effects; diamond or square) that were contingent on the actions. Immediately after the acquisition-phase the test-phase followed, in which participants performed free-choice actions after the presentation of a Go-signal. In Experiments 2 and 3 a NoGo-signal indicating that responses had to be withheld could appear with the same likelihood as the Go-signal. Unknown to the participants, one of the former action-effects (diamond or square) was presented subliminally prior to each Go- and NoGo-signal to investigate the influence of unconscious action-effects on response selection. Taken together, the results of the test-phases provided strong evidence that even subliminally presented (i.e., unconscious) action-effects can automatically activate associated responses. The response priming by action-effects became evident in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological indicator of specific response activation processes. Under certain circumstanced this automatic response activation can bias free-choice actions although participants experienced the actions as freely chosen. In the test-phase of the first experiment more acquisition-phase-consistent than –inconsistent responses were chosen. If, for instance, a left key-press had been associated with a square during the acquisition-phase, the left key was chosen significantly more often after the subliminal presentation of a square in the test-phase. At least three factors seemed to influence which responses were chosen and executed: The strength of the priming effect, the complexity of the task (i.e., pure Go-blocks or intermixed Go/NoGo-blocks), and the elapsed time between the prime stimulus and the Go-signal. To address the second question simple key-press actions were linked to action-effects with different emotional valences (positive vs. negative pictures accompanied by high or low tones) during the acquisition-phase. In the subsequent test-phase, the effects-tones that had been associated with negative or positive pictures were presented and followed by a Go-signal, after which participants had to freely choose to press one of the two response keys. Results indicated that the anticipation of the emotional valence of an action-effect influenced free-choice action. Whereas the effect-tones induced a clear response bias (i.e., more acquisition-consistent than –inconsistent key-choices) if they had been associated with a positive emotional valence, this response bias was not reliable for action-effects associated with negative emotional features. In summary, the present results provide further proof for ideomotor theories of action control (James, 1890; Elsner & Hommel, 2001) which state that actions are automatically activated by anticipating their consequences.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Wendt-Kürschner, Juliane"],"institution":"Technische Universität Dresden","degree_name":null,"degree_level":"thesis.doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Goschke, Thomas","Kirschbaum, Clemens","Hoffmann, Joachim"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2006,"date_issued":"2006-07-11","date_published":"2006-07-11","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:59:09Z","subjects":["action control","ideomotor principle","LRP","subliminal priming","Handlungskontrolle","lateralisiertes Bereitschaftspotential","subliminales Priming"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":null,"outbound_label":null,"outbound_source":null},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Goschke, Thomas","Kirschbaum, Clemens","Hoffmann, Joachim"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Wendt-Kürschner, Juliane"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Saechsische Landesbibliothek- Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Dresden","Technische Universität Dresden"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["doctoralThesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["thesis.doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Technische Universität Dresden"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["action control","ideomotor principle","LRP","subliminal priming","Handlungskontrolle","lateralisiertes Bereitschaftspotential","subliminales Priming"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In the course of development organisms learn to associate their actions with the effects these actions have in the environment. Recent studies have shown that perceiving or anticipating action-effects automatically activates actions, which formerly have been experienced to cause these effects (Elsner & Hommel, 2001). Using subliminal priming paradigms and electrophysiological measures I investigated whether subliminally (i.e., not consciously perceivable) presented action-effects can automatically activate associated actions and if so, whether this response priming by action-effects can bias free-choice actions. Secondly I investigated whether action-effects with different emotional valences influence response selection differently. To address the first question three experiments were performed. Each experiment consisted of two experimental phases. The first phase, the acquisition-phase, was a learning phase were simple key-press actions were associated with simple visual stimuli (i.e., action-effects; diamond or square) that were contingent on the actions. Immediately after the acquisition-phase the test-phase followed, in which participants performed free-choice actions after the presentation of a Go-signal. In Experiments 2 and 3 a NoGo-signal indicating that responses had to be withheld could appear with the same likelihood as the Go-signal. Unknown to the participants, one of the former action-effects (diamond or square) was presented subliminally prior to each Go- and NoGo-signal to investigate the influence of unconscious action-effects on response selection. Taken together, the results of the test-phases provided strong evidence that even subliminally presented (i.e., unconscious) action-effects can automatically activate associated responses. The response priming by action-effects became evident in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological indicator of specific response activation processes. Under certain circumstanced this automatic response activation can bias free-choice actions although participants experienced the actions as freely chosen. In the test-phase of the first experiment more acquisition-phase-consistent than –inconsistent responses were chosen. If, for instance, a left key-press had been associated with a square during the acquisition-phase, the left key was chosen significantly more often after the subliminal presentation of a square in the test-phase. At least three factors seemed to influence which responses were chosen and executed: The strength of the priming effect, the complexity of the task (i.e., pure Go-blocks or intermixed Go/NoGo-blocks), and the elapsed time between the prime stimulus and the Go-signal. To address the second question simple key-press actions were linked to action-effects with different emotional valences (positive vs. negative pictures accompanied by high or low tones) during the acquisition-phase. In the subsequent test-phase, the effects-tones that had been associated with negative or positive pictures were presented and followed by a Go-signal, after which participants had to freely choose to press one of the two response keys. Results indicated that the anticipation of the emotional valence of an action-effect influenced free-choice action. Whereas the effect-tones induced a clear response bias (i.e., more acquisition-consistent than –inconsistent key-choices) if they had been associated with a positive emotional valence, this response bias was not reliable for action-effects associated with negative emotional features. In summary, the present results provide further proof for ideomotor theories of action control (James, 1890; Elsner & Hommel, 2001) which state that actions are automatically activated by anticipating their consequences."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Unconscious priming of "freely" chosen voluntary actions: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Goschke, Thomas","Kirschbaum, Clemens","Hoffmann, Joachim"],"dc:creator":["Wendt-Kürschner, Juliane"],"dc:description.abstract":["In the course of development organisms learn to associate their actions with the effects these actions have in the environment. Recent studies have shown that perceiving or anticipating action-effects automatically activates actions, which formerly have been experienced to cause these effects (Elsner & Hommel, 2001). Using subliminal priming paradigms and electrophysiological measures I investigated whether subliminally (i.e., not consciously perceivable) presented action-effects can automatically activate associated actions and if so, whether this response priming by action-effects can bias free-choice actions. Secondly I investigated whether action-effects with different emotional valences influence response selection differently. To address the first question three experiments were performed. Each experiment consisted of two experimental phases. The first phase, the acquisition-phase, was a learning phase were simple key-press actions were associated with simple visual stimuli (i.e., action-effects; diamond or square) that were contingent on the actions. Immediately after the acquisition-phase the test-phase followed, in which participants performed free-choice actions after the presentation of a Go-signal. In Experiments 2 and 3 a NoGo-signal indicating that responses had to be withheld could appear with the same likelihood as the Go-signal. Unknown to the participants, one of the former action-effects (diamond or square) was presented subliminally prior to each Go- and NoGo-signal to investigate the influence of unconscious action-effects on response selection. Taken together, the results of the test-phases provided strong evidence that even subliminally presented (i.e., unconscious) action-effects can automatically activate associated responses. The response priming by action-effects became evident in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological indicator of specific response activation processes. Under certain circumstanced this automatic response activation can bias free-choice actions although participants experienced the actions as freely chosen. In the test-phase of the first experiment more acquisition-phase-consistent than –inconsistent responses were chosen. If, for instance, a left key-press had been associated with a square during the acquisition-phase, the left key was chosen significantly more often after the subliminal presentation of a square in the test-phase. At least three factors seemed to influence which responses were chosen and executed: The strength of the priming effect, the complexity of the task (i.e., pure Go-blocks or intermixed Go/NoGo-blocks), and the elapsed time between the prime stimulus and the Go-signal. To address the second question simple key-press actions were linked to action-effects with different emotional valences (positive vs. negative pictures accompanied by high or low tones) during the acquisition-phase. In the subsequent test-phase, the effects-tones that had been associated with negative or positive pictures were presented and followed by a Go-signal, after which participants had to freely choose to press one of the two response keys. Results indicated that the anticipation of the emotional valence of an action-effect influenced free-choice action. Whereas the effect-tones induced a clear response bias (i.e., more acquisition-consistent than –inconsistent key-choices) if they had been associated with a positive emotional valence, this response bias was not reliable for action-effects associated with negative emotional features. In summary, the present results provide further proof for ideomotor theories of action control (James, 1890; Elsner & Hommel, 2001) which state that actions are automatically activated by anticipating their consequences."],"dc:publisher":["Saechsische Landesbibliothek- Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Dresden","Technische Universität Dresden"],"dc:subject":["action control","ideomotor principle","LRP","subliminal priming","Handlungskontrolle","lateralisiertes Bereitschaftspotential","subliminales Priming"],"dc:title":["Unconscious priming of "freely" chosen voluntary actions: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence"],"dc:type":["doctoralThesis"],"thesis:degree_level":["thesis.doctoral"],"thesis:institution_name":["Technische Universität Dresden"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:59:09Z"}