Binding between Responses is not Modulated by Grouping of Response Effects

Selimi, Silvia; Frings, Christian; Moeller, Birte

doi:10.5334/joc.233

Journal of Cognition

2022

DOI: 10.5334/joc.233

|View full text |Cite

Binding between Responses is not Modulated by Grouping of Response Effects

Silvia Selimi

Christian Frings

Birte Moeller

Abstract: Several action control theories postulate that individual responses to stimuli are represented by event files that include temporal bindings between stimulus, response, and effect features. Which stimulus features are bound into an event file can be influenced by stimulus grouping. Here, we investigate whether effect grouping moderates response feature binding. For this purpose, we used an adapted responseresponse binding paradigm introducing a visual effect after each response. These effects could either appe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2023

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings support the assumption that retrieval, but not binding, is influenced by processes modulated by attention. Consistent with this conclusion, Selimi and colleagues ( 2022 ) showed grouping of action effects may not affect response-response binding. They investigated whether visual after-effects of responses further binding and retrieval when these visual effects were grouped together – comparable to previous findings concerning influences of stimulus grouping effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 69%

Core Mechanisms in Action Control: Binding and Retrieval

Kiesel

Fournier

Giesen

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special collection focuses on action control and its two postulated core processes, namely feature binding and retrieval. Action control is an important topic as humans interact with their environment by means of goal-directed behavior, i.e. by means of actions. Cognitive processes were developed and shaped to enhance preparation, execution, and regulation of action. Therefore, it is the current consensus that cognition serves action.To date, research on human action control is comprised mainly of an abundance of paradigm-specific results and models. To gain a better understanding of action control, an integrative framework was proposed (the BRAC framework -for Binding and Retrieval in Action Control, Frings et al., 2020) that can explain a wide range of findings across different experimental paradigms by assuming two core processes as key functions in action control: feature binding and feature retrieval. In this special collection, 20 articles present and discuss different types of sequential paradigms in terms of this integrative account. This editorial explains the major assumptions of the BRAC framework and provides an integrative overview of the articles that are included in this special collection.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 69%

Core Mechanisms in Action Control: Binding and Retrieval

Kiesel

Fournier

Giesen

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

It’s not distance but similarity of distance: changing stimulus relations affect the control of action sequences

Selimi,

Frings,

Münchau

et al. 2024

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interacting with our environment happens on different levels of complexity: While there are individual and simple actions like an isolated button press, most actions are more complex and involve sequences of simpler actions. The degree to which multiple simple actions are represented as one action sequence can be measured via so-called response-response binding effects. When two or more responses are executed consecutively, they are integrated into one representation so that repetition of one response can start retrieval of the other. Executing such an action sequence typically involves responding to multiple objects or stimuli. Here, we investigated whether the spatial relation of these stimuli affects action sequence execution. To that end, we varied the distance between stimuli in a response-response binding task. Stimulus distance might affect response-response binding effects in one of two ways: It might directly affect the representation of the response sequence, making integration and retrieval between responses more likely if the responses relate to close stimuli. Alternatively, the similarity of stimulus distribution during integration and retrieval might be decisive, leading to larger binding effects if stimulus distance is identical during integration and retrieval. We found stronger binding effects with constant than with changing stimulus distance, indicating that action integration and retrieval can easily affect performance also if responses refer to separated objects. However, this effect on performance is diminished by changing spatial distribution of stimuli at the times of integration and retrieval.

show abstract

Separated hands further response–response binding effects

Selimi,

Frings,

Moeller

2024

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action control is hierarchically organized. Multiple consecutive responses can be integrated into an event representation of higher order and can retrieve each other upon repetition, resulting in so-called response–response binding effects. Previous research indicates that the spatial separation of responses can affect how easily they can be cognitively separated. In this study, we introduced a barrier between the responding hands to investigate whether the spatial separation of two responses also influences response–response binding effects. In line with previous research on stimulus–response binding, we expected an increased separability of responses to result in stronger response–response binding effects when responding hands were separated by a barrier. We indeed found stronger response–response binding effects with separated hands. Results indicate that a more distinct representation of individual actions through increased separability might benefit the control of hierarchical actions.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Binding between Responses is not Modulated by Grouping of Response Effects

Cited by 3 publications

References 38 publications

Core Mechanisms in Action Control: Binding and Retrieval

Core Mechanisms in Action Control: Binding and Retrieval

It’s not distance but similarity of distance: changing stimulus relations affect the control of action sequences

Separated hands further response–response binding effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About