Responding to a target's current (probe trial) location is slower when it appears at a former distractor-occupied position (i.e., ignored-repetition [IR] trial), relative to when it arises at a new location (i.e., control trial). This RT(IR) > RT(Control) inequality defines the spatial negative priming (SNP) effect in latency terms. It is uncertain whether the elevated RT(IR) is due to the inhibition of the distractor-occupied location or to the inhibition of this location's assigned manual response (SNP locus issue). The main aim here was to examine the SNP locus issue. Notably, our SNP design used centrally presented visual events and included having two locations share a common response (many:1 location-to-response mapping) and the use of informative (70 % validity) or uninformative probe-trial response cues. The many:1 mapping trials allowed for the detection of location and response inhibition presence. Results showed that the latter, but not the former, causes inhibitory aftereffects (e.g., SNP) following uninformative response cues. Consistent with this finding, when the informative response cue was valid and was assigned to the many:1 probe response that had just served as the prime distractor response, inhibitory aftereffects were eliminated, when the probe target appeared at the prime distractor position (IR trial) or at a new location (distractor-response repeat trial). Blocked retrieval of stored distractor-processing representations was proposed as the mechanism for inhibitory aftereffect prevention.

Younger (M = 21 years) and older (M = 74 years) adults completed a spatial negative priming (SNP) task where (central) events (i.e., target or distractor) are presented in trial pairs: first the prime and then the probe. Free-choice trials were included (1 location: 2 permissible responses), which allowed us to isolate response inhibition and its consequent inhibitory aftereffects (i.e., current inhibition interferes with later related processing-e.g., SNP). The inhibitory aftereffects associated with the suppression of responses activated by distractor-occupied locations were highly comparable for younger and older adults; including similar SNP effect sizes, a significant tendency to select against former distractor (inhibited) responses (within-hand finger options) on free-choice trials, and latency delays attributable solely to the use of self-selected distractor responses. Aftereffects generated by target-occupied prime trials locations were also the same for both age groups; recently executed target responses were selected for and produced faster responding (within hand). Aftereffects were absent on between-hand free-choice trials and, overall, response selection determinants on free-choice trials matched for older and younger adults.

In spatial negative priming (SNP) tasks, trials are presented in pairs; first the 'prime', and then the 'probe'. Target and/or distractor events appear on both trials and probe target reaction time is significantly lengthened when it arises at a former distractor-occupied location (ignored-repetition [IR] trial), relative to when it appears at a new location (control [CO] trial). This latency inequality, which is not inevitable, defines the SNP effect. Here, we examined the influence of prime and probe trial distractor identity similarity on restoring the SNP effect when its prevention was successfully motivated by the use of a .25 (distractor present)/.75 (distractor absent) condition. Two results were important: (1) the SNP effect was restored when the probe distractor identity fully matched that of the prime trial, but not when distractor identities partially or totally mismatched, showing a retrieval role for the probe distractor, and, (2) target-repeat trial facilitation showed the same pattern, present with full matches, otherwise being absent. These results showed that prime-trial processing representations are stored episodically in location tasks, and that event identities are part of the episode, making distractor event identity matches critical for prime representation retrieval. Additionally, event numbers were not part of the episode so that matching event numbers between prime and probe trials was not important for retrieval of stored prime representations.

Past work has shown that cued manual responses in visuo-identity tasks bind to irrelevant stimulus features, present at the time these responses were executed (prime trial). These response bindings manifested their existence via impacts on later related processing (probe trial). Here, we extended this prior research by showing that response binding is likely a pervasive processing characteristic. We saw that uncertain prime-trial responses (i.e., free-choice, forced-choice) did bind to the relevant "location" feature of the prime stimulus in a visuospatial task (i.e., R-L binding). Overall, R-L binding evidence was better for within-hand than for between-hand probe-trial finger competitions and better for probe trial response selection preferences than for their reaction time (RT) data. R-L binding evidence was entirely absent, however, for forced-choice probe trials. Evidence that the prime response binds to irrelevant prime display features (i.e., prime stimulus identity [R-I binding]) was virtually absent. Other results indicated that R-I likely exists, but that its probe-trial manifestation is prevented by the involvement of R-L binding. Response binding impacts on later processing should be considered when interpreting RT data. Public Significance StatementAutomatic brain processing occurs without our awareness, is common place, and is often integral to everyday successful living (sport, walking, driving a car, etc.). With this and other studies, we are now seeing that "automatic" processing includes the binding of a response to the visual events present at the time these responses are chosen and executed. What this means is that when these same visual events appear later, they bring along (automatically retrieve) their attached response(s) which can have positive or negative influences on current processing; an understanding of these influences is required to properly understand current processing.

No abstract