Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 744–758 | Cite as

Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes

  • Christina U. PfeufferEmail author
  • Theresa Hosp
  • Eva Kimmig
  • Karolina Moutsopoulou
  • Florian Waszak
  • Andrea Kiesel
Original Article

Abstract

Responding to stimuli leads to the formation of stimulus–response (S–R) associations that allow stimuli to subsequently automatically trigger associated responses. A recent study has shown that S–R associations are established not only by active task execution, but also by the simultaneous presentation of stimuli and verbal codes denoting responses in the absence of own action [Pfeuffer et al. (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 43:328–347, 2017)]. Here, we used an item-specific priming paradigm to investigate whether the stimulus part of S–R associations formed based on task execution and verbal codes is represented in abstract or specific format by examining whether S–R associations are retrieved for perceptually different forms of the same stimulus or not. Between the prime and probe instance of a stimulus, its format switched from image to word or vice versa. We found that, irrespective of whether stimuli were primed by task execution or verbal coding, performance was impaired when S–R mappings switched rather than repeated between the prime and probe instance of a stimulus. The finding that prime S–R mappings affected probe performance even when stimulus format switched indicates that stimuli were represented in abstract form in S–R association based on both task execution and verbal coding. Furthermore, we found no performance benefits for stimuli primed and probed in the same format rather than different formats, suggesting that stimuli were not additionally represented in specific format. Overall, our findings demonstrate the adaptability of automatized behaviors and indicate that abstract stimulus representations allow S–R associations to generalize across perceptually different stimulus formats.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This research was supported by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KI1388/5-1, Andrea Kiesel) and a grant of the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (SRA ANR-13-FRAL-0007-01, Karolina Moutsopoulou).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Allenmark, F., Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2015). A new look on S–R associations: How S and R link. Acta Psychologica, 160, 161–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 14325–14329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Denkinger, B., & Koutstaal, W. (2009). Perceive-decide-act, perceive-decide-act: How abstract is repetition-related decision learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 742–756.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dennis, I., & Schmidt, K. (2003). Associative processes in repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 532–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobbins, I. G., Schnyer, D. M., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning. Nature, 428, 316–319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus–response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 757–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus–response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1457–1471.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Incongruent abstract stimulus–response bindings result in response interference: fMRI and EEG evidence from visual object classification priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 760–773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsu, Y. F., & Waszak, F. (2012). Stimulus–classification traces are dominant in response learning. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 262–268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus–classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and resilience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1744–1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus–response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 328–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Schnyer, D. M., Dobbins, I. G., Nicholls, L., Davis, S., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Item to decision mapping in rapid response learning. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1472–1482.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Waszak, F. (2010). Across-task long-term priming: Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1414–1429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina U. Pfeuffer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Theresa Hosp
    • 1
  • Eva Kimmig
    • 1
  • Karolina Moutsopoulou
    • 2
    • 3
  • Florian Waszak
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrea Kiesel
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognition, Action, and Sustainability Unit, Department of PsychologyAlbert-Ludwigs-University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  3. 3.CNRS (Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, UMR 8158)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations