No abstract

Response retrieval theories assume that stimuli and responses become integrated into "event files" (Hommel, 1998) in memory so that a second encounter with a specific stimulus automatically retrieves the response that was previously associated with this stimulus. In this article, we tested a specific prediction of a recent variant of stimulus retrieval theories as introduced by Rothermund, Wentura, and De Houwer (2005): In selection tasks where target stimuli are accompanied by distractors, responses to target stimuli are automatically bound to distractor stimuli as well; repeating the distractor should retrieve the response to the target that formerly accompanied the distractor. In three experiments we confirmed this prediction: Distractor repetition facilitated responding in the probe in the case of response repetition whereas repeating the distractor delayed responding in the case of response change.

HighlightsS–R bindings are more flexible and pervasive than previously thought.S–R bindings can simultaneously encode multiple stimulus and response representations.S–R bindings can be encoded or retrieved in the absence of attention or awareness.S–R bindings complicate interpretations of priming, but are interesting in their own right.S–R bindings enable rapid yet context-dependent behaviors.

Negative Priming (NP) is an influential paradigm in cognitive psychology that was originally developed to measure attentional selection. Yet, up to the mid-1990s, a large number of experimental reports questioned whether the NP effect is based on attentional inhibition and/or episodic retrieval processes. In this review, we summarize findings since the mid1990s and discuss new and old theoretical approaches to Negative Priming. We conclude that more than one process contributes to NP and that future research should analyze the conditions under which a particular process contributes to NP. Moreover, we argue that the paradigm -although it does not measure a single cognitive process alone -is still a useful tool for understanding selection in cognition. In fact, it might be a virtue of the paradigm that several cognitive processes work here together as selection in nonexperimental contexts is surely a multidimensional process. From this perspective, research on NP is relevant for all research fields analyzing selection. We therefore close our review by discussing the implications of the new evidence on NP for theories of selective attention.

The binding of stimulus and response features into stimulus-response (S-R) episodes or "event files" is a basic process for the efficient control of behavior. However, relevant information is usually accompanied by information that is irrelevant for the selection of action. Recent studies showed that even irrelevant information is bound into event files. In this study, we investigated the boundary conditions of distractor-response binding and subsequent distractor-based response retrieval processes. In particular, we tested whether the inclusion of distractor information into S-R episodes is modulated by whether the distractor and target stimulus are perceived as belonging to the same object or as belonging to different objects. We argue that distracting information is only bound into S-R episodes if it is perceived as belonging to the same object as the relevant information, whereas no binding occurs when the distracting information is perceived as belonging to a separate object. In 6 experiments, we found evidence for the modulation of distractor-response bindings according to perceptual grouping principles.

Distractor-to-distractor repetition effects can be explained by retrieval and/or inhibitory processes. Interestingly, the two accounts predict different effects from repeated distractors: Inhibition theories always predict benefits, whereas stimulus-response-retrieval theories predict an interaction of response repetition and distractor repetitions, resulting in benefits with response repetitions and costs with response changes. In the present experiment the time-course and the temporal separability of a stimulus-response episode on distractor-to-distractor repetitions were analyzed. The results showed that the interaction of response repetition and distractor repetitions was affected by a simple decay function. In addition, distractor repetition effects were affected by the temporal separability. In concert, the data yield evidence for retrieval-based explanations of distractor-to-distractor repetitions.

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.

To investigate self-prioritization independently of stimulus familiarity, Sui et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38:1105-1117, 2012. doi: 10.1037/a0029792 ) introduced a new paradigm in which different geometric shapes are arbitrarily associated with self-relevant (e.g., "I") and neutral labels (e.g., "stranger"). It has now been repeatedly demonstrated that in a subsequently presented matching task, this association leads to faster and more accurate verifications of self-relevant shape-label pairings than neutral shape-label pairings. In order to assess whether this self-prioritization effect represents a general selection mechanism in human information processing, we examined whether it is limited to the visual modality. Therefore, besides visual stimuli, auditory and vibrotactile stimuli were also associated either to self-relevant or to neutral labels. The findings demonstrate that self-prioritization represents a general tendency influencing human information processing, one that operates across the senses. Our results also highlight a top-down component to self-prioritization.