From Exemplars to Categories: Generalization of Action-Effect Learning in a Free-choice Task
Le résumé fourni par la source
A fundamental aspect of intentional action is the ability to generalize learned response-effect (R-E) associations to novel situations. However, the mechanisms underlying such category-based generalization, particularly in the context of voluntary action selection, remain contested. Across four free-choice experiments, we systematically investigated this issue. Participants learned associations between keypresses and pictorial effects, where the learning experience was manipulated from a single, repeated exemplar to numerous unique exemplars presented only once. The categories ranged from basic-level (e.g., dogs vs. cars) to abstract superordinate levels (e.g., animals vs. machines). Results consistently demonstrated a significant generalization effect: participants preferentially selected actions congruent with the category of novel test stimuli, even when exemplar-specific learning was minimized. This provides evidence for a direct response-category binding mechanism. However, this group-level effect was consistently driven by a subset of participants exhibiting near-deterministic choice patterns, and the statistical evidence for this effect was substantially weakened after excluding them. These findings suggest that R-E generalization in voluntary action is not a uniform, automatic process but relies on the acquisition and strategic application of explicit, propositional knowledge regarding action-effect contingencies. This highlights the critical role of conscious reasoning in goal-directed behavior, refining current theories of action control.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- From Exemplars to Categories: Generalization of Action-Effect Learning in a Free-choice Task
- Date Crossref
- 16/02/2026
- Éditeur
- Center for Open Science
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.