Birte Moeller

Retrieval of Event Files Can Be Conceptually Mediated

Distractor-based retrieval of event files was assessed with a sequential priming experiment using a four-choice identification task. Pictures or sounds of four different animals (frog, chicken, lamb, singing bird) had to be categorized by pressing one of four keys. On each trial, a target and a distractor stimulus were presented simultaneously in different modalities. The relevant modality switched randomly between trials. Distractor repetition effects were modulated by the response relation between the prime and probe: Repeating the prime distractor in the probe produced facilitation if the response repeated, but not if a different response had to be given in the prime and probe. Repeating the prime distractor in the probe led to an automatic retrieval of the prime response. Importantly, this distractor-based response retrieval effect also emerged for those sequences in which the modality of the repeated distractor was switched between the prime and probe. This cross-modal priming effect indicates that distractors were integrated into event files on a conceptual level and that response retrieval processes were mediated by conceptual codes of the distractor stimuli.

Integrating the Irrelevant Sound

A distractor can be integrated with a target response and the subsequent repetition of the distractor can facilitate or hamper responding depending on whether the same or a different response is required, a phenomenon labeled distractor-response binding. In two experiments we used a priming paradigm with an identification task to investigate influences of stimulus grouping on the binding of irrelevant stimuli (distractors) and responses in audition. In a grouped condition participants heard relevant and irrelevant sounds in one central location, whereas in a non-grouped condition the relevant sound was presented to one ear and the irrelevant sound was presented to the other ear. Distractor-based retrieval of the prime response was stronger for the grouped compared to the non-grouped presentation of stimuli indicating that binding of irrelevant auditory stimuli with responses is modulated by perceptual grouping.

Remember the touch: tactile distractors retrieve previous responses to targets

In selection tasks where target stimuli are accompanied by distractors, responses to target stimuli, target stimuli and the distractor stimuli can be encoded together as one episode in memory. Subsequent repetition of any aspect of such an episode can lead to the retrieval of the whole episode including the response. Thus, repeating a distractor can retrieve responses given to previous targets; this mechanism was labeled distractor-response binding and has been evidenced in vision and audition. Yet, previous research suggests possibly different distractor processing in the tactile as compared to the visual modality. In the present study, we therefore used a selection task in which participants always responded to one tactile stimulus while ignoring another. Evidence for the integration of tactile distractors with target responses was found in response times and errors. Our results indicate that binding of responses to distractors is a cognitive process that is independent of the stimulus’ modality.

Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files

Response-irrelevant stimuli can be encoded with, and later on retrieve, a response given to a relevant stimulus, an effect that is called distractor–response binding. In three experiments using a prime–probe design, we investigated whether the allocation of attention modulates the processes contributing to distractor–response binding. Participants identified letters via keypresses while attending to one of two sets of simultaneously presented but response-irrelevant number stimuli. In different experiments, both spatial attention and feature-based attention were allocated to the response-irrelevant stimuli. The results showed that only attended response-irrelevant stimuli elicited effects of distractor–response binding. In particular, while the encoding of response-irrelevant stimuli and responses was not particularly affected by attention during prime processing, only attended response-irrelevant stimuli in the probe retrieved previous responses. Hence, we show that attention affects action regulation due to modulating the influence of stimulus–response binding on behavior.

The horserace between distractors and targets: Retrieval-based probe responding depends on distractor–target asynchrony

According to models assuming binding of stimulus and response features, any features can be integrated into a compound (consisting of stimulus and response features) and stored in episodic memory, even features irrelevant to the task. Reencountering any part of such an episode can retrieve the entire episode (or “event file”), including the response. That is, even the repeated presentation of a distractor can retrieve a response given to a target stimulus accompanied by this very distractor. We analysed how distractor-induced retrieval of an event-file competes with the response generation process triggered by the target by varying the stimulus onset asynchrony of targets and distractors. In particular, we used a selection task with prime–probe sequences and asynchronous onset of distractors and targets on the probe. Distractor-induced retrieval was only observed if the probe distractor appeared before or simultaneously with the probe target but not if the probe distractor appeared after probe target onset.

Long-term response-stimulus associations can influence distractor-response bindings.

Strong associations between target stimuli and responses usually facilitate fast and effortless reactions. The present study investigated whether long-term associations between distractor stimuli and responses modulate behavior. In particular, distractor stimuli can affect behavior due to distractor-based stimulus-response retrieval, a phenomenon called distractor-response binding: An ignored stimulus becomes temporarily associated with a response and retrieves it at stimulus repetition. In a flanker task, participants ignored left and right pointing arrows and responded to a target letter either with left and right (strongly associated) responses or with upper and lower (weakly associated) responses. Binding effects were modulated in dependence of the long-term association strength between distractors and responses. If the association was strong (arrows pointing left and right with left and right responses), binding effects emerged but only in case of compatible responses. If the long-term association between distractors and responses was weak (arrows pointing left and right with upper and lower responses), binding was weaker and not modulated by compatibility. In contrast, sequential compatibility effects were not modulated by association strength between distractor and response. The results indicate that existing long-term associations between stimuli responses may modulate the impact of an ignored stimulus on action control.

The structure of distractor-response bindings: Conditions for configural and elemental integration.

Human action control is influenced by bindings between perceived stimuli and responses carried out in their presence. Notably, responses given to a target stimulus can also be integrated with additional response-irrelevant distractor stimuli that accompany the target (distractor-response binding). Subsequently reencountering such a distractor then retrieves the associated response. Although a large body of evidence supports the existence of this effect, the specific structure of distractor-response bindings is still unclear. Here, we test the predictions derived from 2 possible assumptions about the structure of bindings between distractors and responses. According to a configural approach, the entire distractor object is integrated with a response, and only upon repetition of the entire distractor object the associated response would be retrieved. According to an elemental approach, one would predict integration of individual distractor features with the response and retrieval due to the repetition of an individual distractor feature. Four experiments indicate that both, configural and elemental bindings exist and specify boundary conditions for each type of binding. These findings provide detailed insights into the architecture of bindings between response-irrelevant stimuli and actions and thus allow for specifying how distractor stimuli influence human behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record

A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?

Short-term bindings between responses and events in the environment ensure efficient behavioral control. This notion holds true for two particular types of binding: bindings between responses and response-irrelevant distractor stimuli that are present at the time of responding, and also for bindings between responses and the effects they cause. Although both types of binding have been extensively studied in the past, little is known about their interrelation. In three experiments, we analyzed both types of binding processes in a distractor-response binding design and in a response-effect binding design, which yielded two central findings: (1) Distractor-response binding and response-effect binding effects were observed not only in their native, but also in the corresponding “non-native” design, and (2) a manipulation of retrieval delay affected both types of bindings in a similar way. We suggest that a general and unselective mechanism is responsible for integrating own responses with a large variety of stimuli.

Auditory distractor processing in sequential selection tasks

In this review, we analyze the cognitive processes contributing to selection in audition. In particular, we focus on the processing of auditory distractors in sequential selection paradigms in which target stimuli are accompanied by distractors. We review the evidence from two established tasks, namely the auditory negative priming and the auditory distractor–response binding task, and discuss the cognitive mechanisms contributing to the results typically observed in these tasks. In fact, several processes have been suggested as to explain how distractors are processed and handled in audition; that is, auditory distractors can be inhibited, encoded with a do-not-respond-tag, integrated into a stimulus–response episode containing the response to the target, or upheld in working memory and matched/mismatched with the following distractor. In addition, variables possibly modulating these cognitive processes are discussed. Finally, auditory distractor processing is compared with distractor processing in vision.

Overlearned responses hinder S-R binding.

Two mechanisms that are important for human action control are the integration of individual action plans (see Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001) and the automatization of overlearned actions to familiar stimuli (see Logan, 1988). In the present study, we analyzed the influence of automatization on action plan integration. Integration with pronunciation responses were compared for response incompatible word and nonword stimuli. Stimulus–response binding effects were observed for nonwords. In contrast, words that automatically triggered an overlearned pronunciation response were not integrated with pronunciation of a different word. That is, automatized response retrieval hindered binding effects regarding the retrieving stimulus and a new response. The results are a first indication of the way that binding and learning processes interact, and might also be a first step to understanding the more complex interdependency of the processes responsible for stimulus–response binding in action control and stimulus–response associations in learning research.