Carina Giesen

Affective matching moderates S–R binding

We investigated the moderating influence of affective matching on S–R binding processes in a sequential priming study in which positive and negative nouns had to be categorised as referring to a person or to an object. Irrelevant positive and negative distractor words (adjectives) were integrated with responses into S–R episodes if they had the same valence as the target (affective match condition). In this case, repeating the prime distractor in the probe led to a retrieval of the prime response, which facilitated performance for response repetition sequences but had no effect on performance when responses changed between prime and probe. However, if target and distractor had different valences (affective mismatch condition), no interaction of distractor relation and response relation occurred, indicating that distractors were less likely to be associated with responses into event files during the prime trial episode. Findings reveal that affective mismatches are detected automatically and modulate a binding of irrelevant information with responses.

Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor–response bindings

Distractor inhibition and distractor–response binding were investigated in two experiments by analyzing distractor repetition benefits and their interaction with response repetition effects in a sequential-priming paradigm. Distractor repetition benefits were larger for distractors that were incompatible with the to-be-executed response (task-related distractors) than for distractors that were not assigned to a response (neutral distractors), indicating that the strength of distractor inhibition was a function of response interference for the distractors. In contrast, the distractor–response bindings were found to be of equal strength for both task-related and neutral distractors. Thus, differences in the strengths of distractor inhibition did not affect the integration of distractors with responses into event files. Instead, our results suggest that distractor–response binding and distractor inhibition are independent mechanisms that are recruited for the automatization of behavior and action control.

Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses and previous targets: experimental dissociations of distractor-response and distractor-target bindings.

Even an irrelevant distractor stimulus is integrated into event files. Subsequently repeating the distractor triggers retrieval of the event file; however, an unresolved issue concerns the question of what is retrieved by the distractor. While recent studies predominantly assume that the distractor retrieves the previous response, it is also possible that distractor repetition triggers retrieval of the previous target stimulus. In 3 experiments, we dissociated distractor-response and distractor-target binding processes using a sequential distractor-to-distractor repetition paradigm. In Experiment 1, response relation and target relation were manipulated orthogonally; results yielded independent evidence for both mechanisms. Experiment 2 provided distinct evidence for distractor-target binding and retrieval by avoiding response repetitions of any kind. Experiment 3 provided distinct evidence for distractor-response binding and retrieval by eliminating target stimuli. We conclude that both distractor-target and distractor-response binding reflect independent processes in the service of behavior automatization.

You better stop! Binding “stop” tags to irrelevant stimulus features

We investigated whether the basic process of integrating stimuli (and their features) with simultaneously executed responses transfers to situations in which one does not respond to a stimulus. In three experiments, a stop-signal task was combined with a sequential priming paradigm to test whether irrelevant stimulus features become associated with a “stop” tag. Stopping a simple response during the prime trial delayed responding and facilitated stopping in the probe if the same irrelevant stimulus feature was repeated in the probe. These repetition priming effects were independent of the relation between the to-be-executed (or to-be-stopped) responses in the prime and probe, indicating that “stop” tags are global (“stop all responses!”) rather than being response-related (e.g., “stop left response!”).

Copying competitors? Interdependency modulates stimulus-based retrieval of observed responses.

We investigated whether stimuli are integrated with responses that are merely observed, but not executed by oneself, and examined the moderating role of mutual dependency between coactors on the binding and retrieval of stimuli and observed responses. A prime-probe paradigm was shared between 2 coactors who took the roles of actor and observer in turns. We also varied the interdependency between the pairs of participants (cooperation vs. competition vs. independence). Results of Experiment 1 indicated that prime observers showed stimulus-based retrieval of observed responses when it was their turn to act in the 2 interdependent conditions, whereas prime observers in the independent condition did not. Results of Experiment 2 excluded the possibility that the stronger retrieval effects in the interdependent conditions are due to social facilitation of retrieval processes in general, as interdependency did not modulate stimulus-based retrieval of self-generated responses. We conclude that binding and retrieval of stimuli and observed responses is a conditionally automatic process that is contingent on mutual dependency between actor and observer.

Loss of attentional inhibition in older adults--Does it really exist? An experimental dissociation of inhibitory and memory retrieval processes.

It is commonly assumed that attentional inhibitory functioning decreases with age, even though empirical evidence is mixed. These inconsistencies possibly stem from methodological artifacts: distractor inhibition is typically assessed with the negative priming paradigm, which confounds inhibition and episodic retrieval. In the present study, we investigated age differences in a sequential distractor repetition paradigm (Giesen, Frings, & Rothermund, 2012) that provides independent estimates of distractor inhibition and episodic retrieval processes. Older (60+ yrs) and younger (below 30 years) adults identified target letters that were flanked by distractors (JKJ). Inhibitory processes were preserved in older adults, who showed reliable distractor repetition benefits resulting from persistent distractor inhibition; however, a significant loss of inhibition was apparent for the older subgroup of participants (65+ yrs) compared with a subgroup of young-old participants (60 to 64 years). No age differences were found for episodic retrieval processes of stimulus-response bindings that were indexed by an interaction of distractor repetition and response relation. Findings highlight the importance of dissociating between distractor inhibition and retrieval processes that are differently implicated in age-related cognitive change.

Adapting to stimulus-response contingencies without noticing them.

Episodic stimulus-response (S-R) bindings emerge whenever a response is executed in temporal proximity to a stimulus and they are retrieved from memory by repeating the stimulus on a later occasion. To examine whether retrieval of S-R bindings is sensitive to contextual influences, we manipulated contingencies between stimulus repetitions and response repetitions. In a sequential priming paradigm, stimulus repetitions were either predictive of response repetitions (positive contingency) or response changes (negative contingency) or were orthogonal to the response relation (no contingency). Results revealed that compared to the orthogonal condition, S-R binding and retrieval effects were larger under positive contingency but were reduced under negative contingency. The modulating effect of contingency on the strength of S-R binding and retrieval processes was not mediated by contingency awareness. These findings implicate that S-R binding and retrieval processes are implicitly tuned to adapt to contextual affordances that either promote or hinder the use of S-R bindings for efficient action regulation.

Flexible goal imitation: Vicarious feedback influences stimulus-response binding by observation

This study investigated whether vicarious feedback influences binding processes between stimuli and observed responses. Two participants worked together in a shared color categorization task, taking the roles of actor and observer in turns. During a prime trial, participants saw a word while observing the other person executing a specific response. Automatic binding of words and observed responses into stimulus-response (S-R) episodes was assessed via word repetition effects in a subsequent probe trial in which either the same (compatible) or a different (incompatible) response had to be executed by the participants in response to the same or a different word. Results showed that vicarious prime feedback (i.e., the feedback that the other participant received for her or his response in the prime) modulated S-R retrieval effects: After positive vicarious prime feedback, typical S–R retrieval effects emerged (i.e., performance benefits for stimulus repetition probes with compatible responses, but performance costs for stimulus repetition probes with incompatible responses emerged). Notably, however, S–R-retrieval effects were reversed after vicarious negative prime feedback (meaning that stimulus repetition in the probe resulted in performance costs if prime and probe responses were compatible, and in performance benefits for incompatible responses). Findings are consistent with a flexible goal imitation account, according to which imitation is based on an interpretative and therefore feedback-sensitive reconstruction of action goals from observed movements. In concert with earlier findings, this data support the conclusion that transient S–R binding and retrieval processes are involved in social learning phenomena.

Intimacy Effects on Action Regulation: Retrieval of Observationally Acquired Stimulus–Response Bindings in Romantically Involved Interaction Partners Versus Strangers

Previous research has shown that stimulus–response (SR) binding and retrieval processes also occur when responses are only observed in another person (Giesen et al., 2014). Importantly, this effect depends on the two individuals interacting interdependently during the task (e.g., competition or cooperation). Interdependence, however, must not necessarily result from task-related demands, but can also reflect an intrinsic feature of a given relationship. The present study examines whether observing responses of one’s romantic partner also produces stimulus-based retrieval of observed responses even if the task itself does not involve interdependence. Participants performed a task pairwise, either with their romantic partner or with a stranger. In a sequential prime-probe design, both participants of a pair gave color responses themselves (actors) or merely observed these (observers) in alternating fashion. As expected, stimulus-based retrieval of observationally acquired SR-bindings occurred only in romantically involved pairs; participants interacting with a stranger showed no retrieval effects. We conclude that mental representations of self and other are more closely intertwined in romantic couples, which produces automatic retrieval of observationally acquired SR binding effects even independently of the task itself.