Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 92–106 | Cite as

Instruction-induced feature binding

  • Dorit WenkeEmail author
  • Robert Gaschler
  • Dieter Nattkemper
Original Article

Abstract

In order to test whether or not instructions specifying the stimulus–response (S–R) mappings for a new task suffice to create bindings between specified stimulus and response features, we developed a dual task paradigm of the ABBA type in which participants saw new S–R instructions for the A-task in the beginning of each trial. Immediately after the A-task instructions, participants had to perform a logically independent B-task. The imperative stimulus for the A-task was presented after the B-task had been executed. The present data show that the instructed S–R mappings influence performance on the embedded B-task, even when they (1) have never been practiced, and (2) are irrelevant with respect to the B-task. These results imply that instructions can induce bindings between S- and R-features without prior execution of the task at hand.

Keywords

Target Letter Compatibility Effect Implementation Intention Event File Incompatible Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Maria Eichhorn, Hendrik Lohse, and Jens Nachtwei for collecting the data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dorit Wenke, Humboldt University at Berlin, Department of Psychology, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin, Germany. Email: dorit.wenke@psychologie.hu-berlin.de.

References

  1. Ach, N. (1910). Ü ber den Willensakt und das Temperament. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung. Leipzig: Verlag von Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, A. D., Tipper, S. P., & Chmiel, N. R. J. (1985). Perceptual integration and postcategorical filtering. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 107–132). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2005). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions (this issue).Google Scholar
  5. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 379–401.Google Scholar
  6. Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (1996). What’s in an object file? Evidence from priming studies. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 1260–1277.Google Scholar
  8. Henderson, J. M. (1994). Two representational systems in dynamic visual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hommel, B. (2005). Feature integration across perception and action: Event files affect response choice (this issue).Google Scholar
  13. Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2005). Task switching: On the origin of response congruency effects. Psychological Research (in press).Google Scholar
  18. Kleinsorge, T., & Gajewski, P. D. (2004). Preparation for a forthcoming task is sufficient to produce subsequent shift costs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 302–306.Google Scholar
  19. Kleinsorge, T., & Gajewski, P. D. (2005). Pending intentions: Effects of prospective task encoding on the performance of another task. Psychological Research (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Koch, I. & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Sticky rules: Integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 337–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Oriet, C., Stevanovski, B., & Jolicoeur, P. (2005). Feature binding and episodic retrieval in blindness for congruent stimuli: Evidence from analyses of sequential congruency (this issue).Google Scholar
  28. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and Performance XIX (pp. 538–552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Treisman, A. (1992). Perceiving and re-perceiving objects. American Psychologist, 47, 862–875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter? Experimental Psychology, 52 (in press).Google Scholar
  35. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2005). Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task-switching: Negative priming and competitor priming. Memory & Cognition (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Wenke, D., & Frensch, P.A. (2005). The influence of task instructions on action coding: Constraint Setting or Direct Coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803–819.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260–1270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorit Wenke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Gaschler
    • 1
  • Dieter Nattkemper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHumboldt University at BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations