This article presents consensus definitions for key concepts in action control, informed by the framework of event coding. The authors emphasize the importance of precise terminology in scientific communication to prevent misunderstandings and promote scientific progress. Action control describes how humans interact with their environment, and imprecise language in this domain hinders unified theoretical approaches. The paper introduces consensus definitions of central action control concepts from an event-coding perspective. Modern event-coding approaches, such as the Theory of Event-Coding (TEC) and the Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC) framework, describe human action in an ideomotor context. These approaches assume that humans plan and execute actions by anticipating the perceptual effects of such actions. The anticipation (mental representation) can retrieve motor patterns from memory necessary to achieve the anticipated effects. Response, stimulus, and effect features can be represented together in feature compounds (or event-files, the central concept of these approaches). An event-file is an internal representation of characteristics of stimuli, responses, and effects elicited by the response, which can also be decoded in neural signals. Event-files link perception and action and are conceptually similar to instances in the Instance Theory of Automatization. The consensus definitions presented here stem from approaches concerned with event-files (TEC) and how they are dynamically managed (BRAC). Event-coding approaches can describe results from various paradigms in terms of event-file binding and retrieval due to their sequential nature. These approaches provide a single account for a multitude of specific experimental effects, unifying paradigm-specific approaches in the action control literature. The paper also discusses limitations of the event-coding perspective, such as its focus on "simple actions" in the laboratory and the difficulty in defining what constitutes an "event." It also compares event-coding with other approaches like predictive coding, noting that while they are not mutually exclusive, they may interact with each other. The authors conclude that having a clear basis of communication will help counteract replicability problems and facilitate efforts like the ManyLabs initiative. The paper provides a better common ground in terms and definitions for future studies, focusing on basic principles of how perception and action become integrated during action control.This article presents consensus definitions for key concepts in action control, informed by the framework of event coding. The authors emphasize the importance of precise terminology in scientific communication to prevent misunderstandings and promote scientific progress. Action control describes how humans interact with their environment, and imprecise language in this domain hinders unified theoretical approaches. The paper introduces consensus definitions of central action control concepts from an event-coding perspective. Modern event-coding approaches, such as the Theory of Event-Coding (TEC) and the Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC) framework, describe human action in an ideomotor context. These approaches assume that humans plan and execute actions by anticipating the perceptual effects of such actions. The anticipation (mental representation) can retrieve motor patterns from memory necessary to achieve the anticipated effects. Response, stimulus, and effect features can be represented together in feature compounds (or event-files, the central concept of these approaches). An event-file is an internal representation of characteristics of stimuli, responses, and effects elicited by the response, which can also be decoded in neural signals. Event-files link perception and action and are conceptually similar to instances in the Instance Theory of Automatization. The consensus definitions presented here stem from approaches concerned with event-files (TEC) and how they are dynamically managed (BRAC). Event-coding approaches can describe results from various paradigms in terms of event-file binding and retrieval due to their sequential nature. These approaches provide a single account for a multitude of specific experimental effects, unifying paradigm-specific approaches in the action control literature. The paper also discusses limitations of the event-coding perspective, such as its focus on "simple actions" in the laboratory and the difficulty in defining what constitutes an "event." It also compares event-coding with other approaches like predictive coding, noting that while they are not mutually exclusive, they may interact with each other. The authors conclude that having a clear basis of communication will help counteract replicability problems and facilitate efforts like the ManyLabs initiative. The paper provides a better common ground in terms and definitions for future studies, focusing on basic principles of how perception and action become integrated during action control.