No abstract

Nowadays there is consensus that stimulus and response features are partially represented in the same coding format furthering the binding of these features into event files. If some or all features comprised in an event file repeat later, the whole file can be retrieved thereby modulating ongoing performance (leading to so-called stimulus-response binding effects). Stimulus-response binding effects are usually investigated in sequential priming paradigms where it is assumed that binding occurs in the prime and retrieval in the probe. Importantly, binding and retrieval are not exclusive for targets but also apply to distractor stimuli. A previous study showed that distractor-binding effects were affected by perceptual grouping: Binding effects were significantly larger when stimuli were grouped compared to ungrouped stimuli. Recent theorizing suggests that binding and retrieval are two separate processes that can be individually modulated. Against this background, it is not possible to pinpoint the modulating influence of perceptual grouping on either process at this point in time. Therefore, we adapted the previous study design in two experiments to observe the effect of perceptual grouping on both processes in isolation. Results indicate that perceptual grouping did not impact binding but retrieval: Distractor-response retrieval was reduced when target and distractor were presented in separate objects. Our results thus support recent theorizing on the separation of binding and retrieval.

Stimulus and response features are linked together into an event file when a response is made towards a stimulus. If some or all linked features repeat, the whole event file (including the previous response) is retrieved, thereby affecting current performance (as measured in so-called binding effects). Applying the figure-ground segmentation principle to such action control experiments, previous research showed that only stimulus features that have a figure-like character led to binding effects, while features in the background did not. Against the background of recent theorizing, integration and retrieval are discussed as separate processes that independently contribute to binding effects (BRAC framework). Thus, previous research did not specify whether figure-ground manipulations exert their modulating influence on integration and/or retrieval. We tested this in three experiments. Participants worked through a sequential distractor-response binding (DRB) task, allowing measurement of binding effects between responses and distractor (color) features. Importantly, we manipulated whether the distractor color was presented as a background feature or as a figure feature. In contrast to previous experiments, we applied this manipulation only to prime displays (Experiment 1), only to probe display (Experiment 2), or varied the figure-ground manipulation orthogonally for primes and probes (Experiment 3). Together the results of all three experiments suggest that figure-ground segmentation affects DRB effects on top of encoding specificity, and that especially the retrieval process is affected by this manipulation.

We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event. If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. Yet the role of foreperiods has so far not been investigated in action control. Thus, we investigated the influence of foreperiod on the integration of action-perception features. Participants worked through a standard distractor–response binding paradigm where two consecutive responses are made towards target letters while distractor letters are present. Responses and/or distractors can repeat or change from first to second display, leading to partial repetition costs when only some features repeat or repetition benefits when all features repeat (the difference constituting distractor–response binding). To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we also introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. We observed that distractor–response binding increased with increasing foreperiod duration, and speculate that this was driven by an increase in motor readiness induced by temporal expectancy.

There is growing consensus that stimulus–response bindings (event files) play a central role in human action control. Here, we investigated how the integration and the retrieval of event files are affected by the predictability of stimulus components of event files. We used the distractor–response binding paradigm, in which nominally task-irrelevant distractors are repeated or alternated from a prime to a probe display. The typical outcome of these kinds of tasks is that the effects of distractor repetition and response repetition interact: Performance is worse if the distractor repeats but the response does not, or vice versa. This partial-repetition effect was reduced when the distractor was highly predictable (Experiment 1). Separate manipulations of distractor predictability in the prime and probe trial revealed that this pattern was only replicated if the probe distractors were predictable (Experiment 2b, 3), but not if prime distractors were predictable (Experiment 2a). This suggests that stimulus predictability does not affect the integration of distractor information into event files, but the retrieval of these files when one or more of the integrated features are repeated. We take our findings to support theoretical claims that integration and retrieval of event files might differ concerning their sensitivity to top-down factors.