Selective binding of stimulus, response, and effect features
- 30 Downloads
Responding to a stimulus leads to the integration of the stimulus, the response, and any sensory effect triggered by the response in a mental representation that has been called “event-file” or “instance.” Most theoretical models assume that event files are composed of sets of binary bindings between individual stimulus, response, and effect features. Repeating any of the integrated features on a subsequent occasion would then retrieve the entire episode. However, previous studies mainly focused on either stimulus-response (SR) binding or response-effect (RE) binding while not assessing S-R-E episodes in their entirety. Here we analyzed for the first time bindings within entire action episodes including stimulus, response, and effect. We found clear evidence for SR- and RE-binding, but no indication of integration between stimulus and effect. We conclude that representations of actions are structured according to the current task, possibly providing a base for learning mechanisms to draw on.
KeywordsAction control Stimulus-response binding Response-effect binding Event file
Birte Moeller and Christian Frings, University of Trier, Universitätsring 15, D-54296 Trier, Germany. Wilfried Kunde and Roland Pfister, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 11, D-97070 Würzburg, Germany.
The research reported in this article was supported by grants of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FOR 2790 and MO 2839/2-2).
- Akyürek, E.G., Toffanin, P., & Hommel, B. (2008). Adaptive control of event integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 569-577.Google Scholar
- Colzato, L.S., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 705-716.Google Scholar
- Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240.Google Scholar
- Frings, C., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Hommel, B., ... Philipp, A. (2018). Merkmalsintegration und Abruf als wichtige Prozesse der Handlungs-steuerung – eine Paradigmen-übergreifende Perspektive [Feature integration and retrieval as core processes in action control - a cross-paradigm perspective]. Psychologische Rundschau.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1067–1082.Google Scholar
- Moeller, B., Frings, C., & Pfister, R. (2016). The structure of distractor-response bindings: Conditions for configural and elemental integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 464-479.Google Scholar
- Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2001). Learning of event sequences is based on response-effect learning: Further evidence from a serial reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 595-613.Google Scholar
- Ziessler, M., & Nattkemper, D. (2002). Effect anticipation in action planning. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance XIX (pp. 645–672). Oxford, UK: University Press.Google Scholar