↓ Skip to main content

An action-incongruent secondary task modulates prediction accuracy in experienced performers: evidence for motor simulation

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
An action-incongruent secondary task modulates prediction accuracy in experienced performers: evidence for motor simulation
Published in
Psychological Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00426-015-0672-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Desmond Mulligan, Keith R. Lohse, Nicola J. Hodges

Abstract

We provide behavioral evidence that the human motor system is involved in the perceptual decision processes of skilled performers, directly linking prediction accuracy to the (in)ability of the motor system to activate in a response-specific way. Experienced and non-experienced dart players were asked to predict, from temporally occluded video sequences, the landing position of a dart thrown previously by themselves (self) or another (other). This prediction task was performed while additionally performing (a) an action-incongruent secondary motor task (right arm force production), (b) a congruent secondary motor task (mimicking) or (c) an attention-matched task (tone-monitoring). Non-experienced dart players were not affected by any of the secondary task manipulations, relative to control conditions, yet prediction accuracy decreased for the experienced players when additionally performing the force-production, motor task. This interference effect was present for 'self' as well as 'other' decisions, reducing the accuracy of experienced participants to a novice level. The mimicking (congruent) secondary task condition did not interfere with (or facilitate) prediction accuracy for either group. We conclude that visual-motor experience moderates the process of decision making, such that a seemingly visual-cognitive prediction task relies on activation of the motor system for experienced performers. This fits with a motor simulation account of action prediction in sports and other tasks, and alerts to the specificity of these simulative processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 23%
Sports and Recreations 10 16%
Neuroscience 8 13%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,146,485
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#744
of 977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,933
of 266,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.