Edinburgh Research Explorer A common framework for language comprehension and language production? Citation for published version: Hartsuiker, RJ & Pickering, MJ 2001, 'A common framework for language comprehension and language production?', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 887-+. <http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBBS%2FBBS24_05%2FS0140525X01000103a.pdf& code=aaa3b7457514c8f5d990e75cf703ee45> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences Publisher Rights Statement: ©Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). A common framework for language comprehension and language production?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 887-+ General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. Sep. 2021 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2001) 24, 849–937 Printed in the United States of America The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning Bernhard Hommel,a,b Jochen Müsseler,b Gisa Aschersleben,b and Wolfgang Prinzb aSection of Experimental and Theoretical Psychology, University of Leiden, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands; bMax Planck Institute for Psychological Research, D-80799 Munich, Germany {muesseler;aschersleben;prinz}@mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de www.mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de/~prinz [email protected] Abstract: Traditional approaches to human information processing tend to deal with perception and action planning in isolation, so that an adequate account of the perception-action interface is still missing. On the perceptual side, the dominant cognitive view largely un- derestimates, and thus fails to account for, the impact of action-related processes on both the processing of perceptual information and on perceptual learning. On the action side, most approaches conceive of action planning as a mere continuation of stimulus processing, thus failing to account for the goal-directedness of even the simplest reaction in an experimental task. We propose a new framework for a more adequate theoretical treatment of perception and action planning, in which perceptual contents and action plans are coded in a common representational medium by feature codes with distal reference. Perceived events (perceptions) and to-be-produced events (actions) are equally represented by integrated, task-tuned networks of feature codes – cognitive structures we call event codes. We give an overview of evidence from a wide variety of empirical domains, such as spatial stimulus-response compatibility, sensorimotor syn- chronization, and ideomotor action, showing that our main assumptions are well supported by the data. Keywords: action planning; binding; common coding; event coding; feature integration; perception; perception-action interface 1. Introduction and overview Though TEC is meant to provide a new framework for perception and action planning, its scope is limited in the We propose a new theoretical framework for the cogni- following sense: As regards perception, its focus is on “late” tive underpinnings of perception and action planning, the cognitive products of perceptual processing that stand for, Theory of Event Coding (TEC). Basically, the theory holds or represent, certain features of actual events in the envi- that cognitive representations of events (i.e., of any to- ronment. TEC does not consider the complex machinery of be-perceived or to-be-generated incident in the distal the “early” sensory processes that lead to them. Conversely, environment) subserve not only representational func- as regards action, the focus is on “early” cognitive ante- tions (e.g., for perception, imagery, memory, reasoning) but cedents of action that stand for, or represent, certain fea- action-related functions as well (e.g., for action planning tures of events that are to be generated in the environment and initiation). According to TEC, the core structure of the (5 actions). TEC does not consider the complex machin- functional architecture supporting perception and action ery of the “late” motor processes that subserve their real- planning is formed by a common representational domain ization (i.e., the control and coordination of movements). for perceived events (perception) and intended or to-be- Thus, TEC is meant to provide a framework for under- generated events (action). standing linkages between (late) perception and (early) ac- In a nutshell, we believe that it makes sense to assume tion, or action planning. Therefore, we do not claim that that the stimulus representations underlying perception TEC covers all kinds of interactions between perception and the action representations underlying action planning and action exhaustively. The same applies to the represen- are coded and stored not separately, but together in a com- tationalist approach inherent in TEC. Though we do be- mon representational medium. This implies that stimulus lieve that the representationalist stance that we adopt forms and response codes are not entities of a completely differ- an appropriate metatheoretical framework for our theory, ent kind, but only refer to, and thus represent, different we do not want to imply, or suggest, that it is necessary or events in a particular task and context. Thus, it would be appropriate for understanding other kinds of interactions misleading to speak of stimulus codes and response or ac- between perception and action. tion codes unless one wishes to refer to the roles played by As we will point out below, TEC differs from other, in a code or the event it represents (see sect. 3.2.4). Irrespec- part related approaches to perception and action planning. tive of this role, though, cognitive codes are always event In contrast to the classical information processing view it codes – codes of perceived or (to-be-)produced events. does not see perception and action planning as different, © 2001 Cambridge University Press 0140-525X/01 $12.50 849 Hommel et al.: Theory of Event Coding functionally separable stages but as intimately related, account of the interface between perception and action sometimes even indistinguishable processes producing a planning. Unlike approaches in the domain of spatial orien- wide variety of interactions. This perspective TEC shares tation they neither have a way to accommodate the interac- with the ecological approach, from which it differs, how- tion between perception and action planning in a satisfac- ever, by its emphasis on representational issues – which are tory way nor to account for the impact of action-related anathema to ecological approaches by definition. Finally, knowledge on perception. As regards action and action con- TEC does not deal with the question of how consciousness trol, our review will also show that classical approaches are and externally guided pointing and grasping movements are insufficient on both theoretical and empirical grounds. They related, a topic gaining its attraction from demonstrations neither provide an adequate role for action goals nor can that both can be dissociated under specific conditions (for they account for evidence witnessing the operation of simi- reviews, see Milner & Goodale 1995; Rossetti & Revonsuo larity between perception and action planning. Based on 2000). Although these demonstrations are interesting and these two reviews we will conclude that a new framework is challenging, we do not see how they could provide a basis needed for taking care of the cognitive underpinnings of the for the general theory of intentional action we aim at. mutual interaction between perception and action planning. Our argument for TEC will take three major steps. In the Our review of shortcomings of classical theories will help first step we review classical approaches to perception and us to put constraints on a new framework claiming to ac- action planning, with special emphasis on their mutual link- count for these issues in a more adequate way. As a result, ages. As regards perception, this review will show that cog- TEC is presented in the second step. This theory proposes nitive approaches to perception that are based on linear as its core contention that codes of perceived events and stage theory and its derivatives do not give an adequate planned actions share a common representational domain, to the effect that perceptual codes and action codes may prime each other on the basis of their overlap in this do- main. The structural view underlying this notion regards Bernhard Hommel studied psychology and literature event codes as assemblies of feature codes, based on tem- at the University of Bielefeld, where he also worked as porary integration in a given task context. a research assistant from 1987–1990 and completed his As we will show, TEC is not entirely new. It rather takes dissertation. He then moved to the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich to work as a senior up elements