Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instruction-induced feature binding

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The original idea for this paradigm was shaped during informal talks with Nachshon Meiran during the ESCOP conference in Edinburgh, 2001. We would like to thank Nachshon for his suggestions and his advice regarding this research project.

  2. There was no hint of an effect in the inter-response times of those size-task responses that required two consecutive keypresses, implying that research participants planned (and finished) selection of their double-press responses before pressing the space bar for the first time.

  3. We chose the difference between compatible and neutral trials instead of the overall difference between target-overlapping and non-overlapping trials as an index of overlap costs (i.e., the costs of target-identity repetition compared to non-overlap of target letters across tasks), because it appeared to be the more conservative measure that is less confounded by the extremely slow reactions on spatially incompatible overlapping trials (i.e., by the compatibility effect).

  4. Note that the resulting task representations are unlikely to be of verbal nature. First, it is hard to see how verbal coding would affect size task performance when the instructed S–R mappings are not even needed in the size task. Second, as mentioned in the Discussion part of Exp. 1, we carried out a replication experiment of Exp. 1 in which participants were required to hold a tongue depressor in their mouths that supposedly blocked their articulatory apparatus, thereby impairing (sub-)vocal rehearsal. Thus, even if there was a way for verbal codes to interfere with size task performance, their impact should have been reduced with tongue depressor. However, the tongue depressor results largely mirrored the Exp. 1 results. Hence, one may speculate that quasi-perceptual or conceptual codes were integrated during some sort of cognitive simulation during instruction understanding, that is, when situation models of the instructed situations were constructed (e.g., Barsalou, 1999; Glenberg & Robertson, 2000).

  5. We are currently running an additional experiment that directly tests whether encounter-based binding makes any difference with respect to the tasks used in the present study. This experiment differs from the present Exp. 1 in that, similar to Stoet and Hommel (1999), the imperative target letter for the identity task is presented before the size-task, hence allowing response selection (but not execution) in advance of performing the embedded task.

References

  • Ach, N. (1910). Ü ber den Willensakt und das Temperament. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung. Leipzig: Verlag von Quelle und Meyer.

  • 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 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2005). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions (this issue).

  • 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 

  • Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (1996). What’s in an object file? Evidence from priming studies. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 1260–1277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. M. (1994). Two representational systems in dynamic visual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 410–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2005). Feature integration across perception and action: Event files affect response choice (this issue).

  • Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2005). Task switching: On the origin of response congruency effects. Psychological Research (in press).

  • 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 

  • Kleinsorge, T., & Gajewski, P. D. (2005). Pending intentions: Effects of prospective task encoding on the performance of another task. Psychological Research (in press).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Treisman, A. (1992). Perceiving and re-perceiving objects. American Psychologist, 47, 862–875.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter? Experimental Psychology, 52 (in press).

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Humboldt University at Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489, Berlin, Germany

    Dorit Wenke, Robert Gaschler & Dieter Nattkemper

Authors
  1. Dorit Wenke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Gaschler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dieter Nattkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorit Wenke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wenke, D., Gaschler, R. & Nattkemper, D. Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research 71, 92–106 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0038-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0038-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation