Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1974–1979 | Cite as

Response–response binding across effector-set switches

  • Birte MoellerEmail author
  • Christian Frings
Brief Report
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

A single encounter of a response together with a stimulus results in short-lived binding between the stimulus and the response. A repetition of any part of such a stimulus–response episode can then retrieve the whole episode, including the response. Recent findings have shown that similar binding is also possible between two successive but independently planned manual responses, indicating that binding processes also play a role in the coordination of action sequences. Action coordination in everyday life often includes alternation between different effector sets. Yet switching effectors has been shown to result in very clear partitioning of actions. Thus, it is unclear whether responses carried out via different effector sets (feet and hands) are as easily integrated as responses via a single effector set (hands). In two experiments, we investigated whether response–response integration is possible across effector-set switches, and compared the binding effects across effector sets to those within one effector set. In a prime–probe design, participants executed two responses at the prime and the probe—the first via their hands and the second via their feet (Exp. 1), or the first via either hands or feet and the second via hands (Exp. 2). The data from both experiments indicated binding between responses, even if the actions were carried out via different effector sets. However, bindings between responses that were carried out via different effector sets were weaker than bindings between responses via a single effector set. We concluded that binding constitutes a main function of action sequences in human behavior.

Keywords

Action control Stimulus–response binding Response–response binding Effector switch 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Open Practice Statement

The data of the reported experiments are not openly available, and the experiments were not preregistered.

References

  1. Abrahamse, E. L., Jiménez, L., Verwey, W. B., & Clegg, B. A. (2010). Representing serial action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 603–623.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.603 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Braem, S., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2011). Conflict adaptation by means of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1662–1666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S.W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eder, A. B., Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (2012). The structure of affective action representations: Temporal binding of affective response codes. Psychological Research, 76, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eimer, M., Schubö, A., & Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Locus of inhibition in the masked priming of response alternatives. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Frings, C., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Hommel, B., … Philipp, A. (in press). Merkmalsintegration und Abruf als wichtige Prozesse der Handlungssteuerung—Eine Paradigmen-übergreifende Perspektive [Feature integration and retrieval as core processes in action control—A cross-paradigm perspective]. Psychologische Rundschau.Google Scholar
  8. Giesen, C., & Rothermund, K. (2014). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses and previous targets: experimental dissociations of distractor–response and distractor–target bindings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 645–659.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035278 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hirsch, P., Nolden, S., & Koch, I. (2017). Higher-order cognitive control in dual tasks: Evidence from task-pair switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 569–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffmann, J., Martin, C., & Schilling, A. (2003). Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions. Psychological Research, 67, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878, disc. 878–937.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2014). Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 959-978.Google Scholar
  15. Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2019a). From simple to complex actions: Response–response bindings as a new approach to action sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2019b). Lost time: Bindings do not represent temporal order information. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26, 325–331.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1493-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Moeller, B., Hommel, B., & Frings, C. (2015). From hands to feet: Abstract response representations in distractor–response bindings. Acta Psychologica, 159, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nattkemper, D., & Prinz, W. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60, 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of response modalities in cognitive task representations. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713752551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444–474.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.4.444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus–response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive psychology, 91, 82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh, T., Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2016). Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S–R episodes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2307–2312.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1210-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  28. Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366–375.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wright, C. E. (1990). Generalized motor programs: Reevaluating claims of effector independence. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII: Motor representation and control (pp. 294–320). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for PsychologyUniversity of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations