Advertisement

Selective binding of stimulus, response, and effect features

  • Birte MoellerEmail author
  • Roland Pfister
  • Wilfried Kunde
  • Christian Frings
Brief Report
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Action control Stimulus-response binding Response-effect binding Event file 

Notes

Author notes

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).

References

  1. 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
  2. Bogon, J., Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Binding time: Evidence for integration of temporal stimulus features. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 1290-1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Dutzi, I., & Hommel, B. (2009). The microgenesis of action-effect binding. Psychological Research, 73, 425-435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229-240.Google Scholar
  6. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in the acquisition of action effects. Psychological Research, 68, 138-154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  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.Google Scholar
  9. Herwig, A. & Waszak, F. (2012). Action-effect bindings and ideomotor learning in intention and stimulus-based actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoffmann, J., Berner, M., Butz, M. V., Herbort, O., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Lenhard, A. (2007). Explorations of anticipatory behavioral control (ABC): A report from the cognitive psychology unit of the University of Würzburg. Cognitive Processing, 8, 133-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1067–1082.Google Scholar
  14. Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2017). Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 940-949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janczyk, M., Heinemann, A., & Pfister, R. (2012). Instant attraction: Immediate action-effect bindings occur for both, stimulus-and goal-driven actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249-259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017). Dissociation of binding and learning processes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 2590-2605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Moeller, B., Pfister, R., Kunde, W., & Frings, C. (2016). A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 1074-1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Singh, T., Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2016). Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of SR episodes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2307-2312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Vogel, D., Scherbaum, S., & Janczyk, M. (2018). Dissociating decision strategies in free-choice tasks–A mouse tracking analysis. Acta Psychologica, 190, 65-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus–task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1027-1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weller, L., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2017). Non-action effect binding: A critical re-assessment. Acta Psychologica, 180, 137-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2011). On the timescale of stimulus-based action–effect learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1273-1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birte Moeller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roland Pfister
    • 2
  • Wilfried Kunde
    • 2
  • Christian Frings
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TrierTrierGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWürzburg UniversityWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations