@article{JanczykWelshDolk2016, author = {Janczyk, Markus and Welsh, Timothy N. and Dolk, Thomas}, title = {A role of goals for social inhibition of return?}, series = {The quarterly journal of experimental psychology}, volume = {69}, journal = {The quarterly journal of experimental psychology}, publisher = {Wiley-VCH}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1747-0218}, doi = {10.1080/17470218.2015.1112417}, pages = {2402 -- 2418}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The social inhibition of return (sIOR) effect refers to the finding that response initiation times are longer if a movement is executed to a location where another person has responded to just before. Previous studies have examined the influence of the goal of the action on sIOR. In these studies, however, the movement endpoint and to-be-attained goal (e.g., touching/pressing a response key) were at the same spatial location. In the present two experiments, we disentangled movement endpoint and goal's identity and locations by means of introducing action effects that followed directly from a movement. Similar methods were previously shown powerful enough to clearly show the importance of action goals for other phenomena—a finding consistent with effect-based theories of action control, such as the ideomotor theory. The results of the present study revealed that sIOR was shaped by the movement endpoint location, not the goal's identity or location. That is, in both experiments, an sIOR effect was observed, but the magnitude of the sIOR effect was not modulated by repetitions/switches of goals or their locations. Thus, results indicate that goals play a negligible role in the emergence of the sIOR and, consequently, highlight the importance of action observation for the emergence of the sIOR effect.}, language = {en} } @article{GerthDolkKlassertetal.2016, author = {Gerth, Sabrina and Dolk, Thomas and Klassert, Annegret and Fliesser, Michael and Fischer, Martin H. and Nottbusch, Guido and Festman, Julia}, title = {Adapting to the surface: A comparison of handwriting measures when writing on a tablet computer and on paper}, series = {Human movement science : a journal devoted to pure and applied research on human movement}, volume = {48}, journal = {Human movement science : a journal devoted to pure and applied research on human movement}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0167-9457}, doi = {10.1016/j.humov.2016.04.006}, pages = {62 -- 73}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Our study addresses the following research questions: Are there differences between handwriting movements on paper and on a tablet computer? Can experienced writers, such as most adults, adapt their graphomotor execution during writing to a rather unfamiliar surface for instance a tablet computer? We examined the handwriting performance of adults in three tasks with different complexity: (a) graphomotor abilities, (b) visuomotor abilities and (c) handwriting. Each participant performed each task twice, once on paper and once on a tablet computer with a pen. We tested 25 participants by measuring their writing duration, in air time, number of pen lifts, writing velocity and number of inversions in velocity. The data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects modeling with repeated measures. Our results reveal differences between writing on paper and on a tablet computer which were partly task-dependent. Our findings also show that participants were able to adapt their graphomotor execution to the smoother surface of the tablet computer during the tasks. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.}, language = {en} } @article{GerthKlassertDolketal.2016, author = {Gerth, Sabrina and Klassert, Annegret and Dolk, Thomas and Fliesser, Michael and Fischer, Martin H. and Nottbusch, Guido and Festman, Julia}, title = {Is Handwriting Performance Affected by the Writing Surface? Comparing Tablet vs. Paper}, series = {Frontiers in psychology}, volume = {7}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01308}, pages = {18}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{SellaroDolkColzatoetal.2015, author = {Sellaro, Roberta and Dolk, Thomas and Colzato, Lorenza S. and Liepelt, Roman and Hommel, Bernhard}, title = {Referential Coding Does Not Rely on Location Features: Evidence for a Nonspatial Joint Simon Effect}, series = {Journal of experimental psychology : Human perception and performance}, volume = {41}, journal = {Journal of experimental psychology : Human perception and performance}, number = {1}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0096-1523}, doi = {10.1037/a0038548}, pages = {186 -- 195}, year = {2015}, abstract = {The joint Simon effect (JSE) shows that the presence of another agent can change one's representation of one's task and/or action. According to the spatial response coding approach, this is because another person in one's peri-personal space automatically induces the spatial coding of one's own action, which in turn invites spatial stimulus-response priming. According to the referential coding approach, the presence of another person or event creates response conflict, which the actor is assumed to solve by emphasizing response features that discriminate between one's own response and that of the other. The 2 approaches often make the same predictions, but the spatial response coding approach considers spatial location as the only dimension that can drive response coding, whereas the referential coding approach allows for other dimensions as well. To compare these approaches, the authors ran 2 experiments to see whether a nonspatial JSE can be demonstrated. Participants responded to the geometrical shape of a central colored stimulus by pressing a left or right button, while wearing gloves of the same or different color as the stimuli. Participants performed the task individually, either by responding to either stimulus shapes (Experiment 1) or by responding to only 1 of the 2 shapes (Experiment 2), and in the presence of a coactor. Congruence between stimulus and glove color affected performance in the 2-choice and the joint tasks but not in the individual go/no-go task. This demonstration of a nonspatial JSE is inconsistent with the spatial response coding approach but supports the referential coding approach.}, language = {en} } @article{StenzelDolkColzatoetal.2014, author = {Stenzel, Anna and Dolk, Thomas and Colzato, Lorenza S. and Sellaro, Roberta and Hommel, Bernhard and Liepelt, Roman}, title = {The joint Simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action}, series = {Frontiers in human neuroscienc}, volume = {8}, journal = {Frontiers in human neuroscienc}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1662-5161}, doi = {10.3389/fnhum.2014.00595}, pages = {10}, year = {2014}, abstract = {A co-actor's intentionality has been suggested to be a key modulating factor for joint action effects like the joint Simon effect (JSE). However, in previous studies intentionality has often been confounded with agency defined as perceiving the initiator of an action as being the causal source of the action. The aim of the present study was to disentangle the role of agency and intentionality as modulating factors of the JSE. In Experiment 1, participants performed a joint go/nogo Simon task next to a co-actor who either intentionally controlled a response button with own finger movements (agency+/intentionality+) or who passively placed the hand on a response button that moved up and down on its own as triggered by computer signals (agency-/intentionality-). In Experiment 2, we included a condition in which participants believed that the co-actor intentionally controlled the response button with a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) while placing the response finger clearly besides the response button, so that the causal relationship between agent and action effect was perceptually disrupted (agency-/intentionality+). As a control condition, the response button was computer controlled while the co-actor placed the response finger besides the response button (agency-/intentionality-). Experiment 1 showed that the JSE is present with an intentional co-actor and causality between co-actor and action effect, but absent with an unintentional co-actor and a lack of causality between co-actor and action effect. Experiment 2 showed that the JSE is absent with an intentional co-actor, but no causality between co-actor and action effect. Our findings indicate an important role of the co-actor's agency for the JSE. They also suggest that the attribution of agency has a strong perceptual basis.}, language = {en} } @article{GerthKlassertDolketal.2016, author = {Gerth, Sabrina and Klassert, Annegret and Dolk, Thomas and Fliesser, Michael and Fischer, Martin H. and Nottbusch, Guido and Festman, Julia}, title = {Is Handwriting Performance Affected by the Writing Surface?}, series = {Frontiers in psychology}, volume = {7}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01308}, pages = {18}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Due to their multifunctionality, tablets offer tremendous advantages for research on handwriting dynamics or for interactive use of learning apps in schools. Further, the widespread use of tablet computers has had a great impact on handwriting in the current generation. But, is it advisable to teach how to write and to assess handwriting in pre- and primary schoolchildren on tablets rather than on paper? Since handwriting is not automatized before the age of 10 years, children's handwriting movements require graphomotor and visual feedback as well as permanent control of movement execution during handwriting. Modifications in writing conditions, for instance the smoother writing surface of a tablet, might influence handwriting performance in general and in particular those of non-automatized beginning writers. In order to investigate how handwriting performance is affected by a difference in friction of the writing surface, we recruited three groups with varying levels of handwriting automaticity: 25 preschoolers, 27 second graders, and 25 adults. We administered three tasks measuring graphomotor abilities, visuomotor abilities, and handwriting performance (only second graders and adults). We evaluated two aspects of handwriting performance: the handwriting quality with a visual score and the handwriting dynamics using online handwriting measures [e.g., writing duration, writing velocity, strokes and number of inversions in velocity (NIV)]. In particular, NIVs which describe the number of velocity peaks during handwriting are directly related to the level of handwriting automaticity. In general, we found differences between writing on paper compared to the tablet. These differences were partly task-dependent. The comparison between tablet and paper revealed a faster writing velocity for all groups and all tasks on the tablet which indicates that all participants—even the experienced writers—were influenced by the lower friction of the tablet surface. Our results for the group-comparison show advancing levels in handwriting automaticity from preschoolers to second graders to adults, which confirms that our method depicts handwriting performance in groups with varying degrees of handwriting automaticity. We conclude that the smoother tablet surface requires additional control of handwriting movements and therefore might present an additional challenge for learners of handwriting.}, language = {en} }