Evidence for episodic retrieval of inadequate prime responses in auditory negative priming.

Abstract

Four experiments are reported in which the mechanisms underlying auditory negative priming were investigated. In Experiments 1A and 1B, preprime-prime intervals and prime-probe intervals were manipulated. The ratio between the 2 intervals determined the size of the negative priming effect. Results are compatible with the episodic retrieval account, according to which the retrieval of inappropriate response information associated with the previous distractor slows down responding when that stimulus becomes the target. Experiment 2 tested a variant of this account, according to which the retrieval of the prime response rather than the retrieval of nonresponse information interferes with responding. Consistent with this variant, participants erroneously responded with the prime response more frequently in the ignored repetition condition than in the control condition. Experiment 3 replicated this finding and generalized it to the visual modality. The authors conclude that the retrieval of the inappropriate prime response is a determinant of the negative priming phenomenon.

Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated

“…It seems that a retrieval of event files can be mediated by perceptual features (e.g., Frings & Rothermund, 2011;Hommel, 2004;Mayr & Buchner, 2006), by word entries in a lexicon (Giesen & Rothermund, 2011;Rothermund et al, 2005), by location information (Frings & Moeller, 2010), and also by conceptual representations of irrelevant stimuli-as evidenced by the results of the present study.…”

“…Furthermore, the binding of stimuli and responses is not restricted to stimulus features that are relevant for the selection of an action. Recent studies have found that even irrelevant or distracting elements of a situation can become associated with a response given to another object, a phenomenon that has been labeled distractor-response binding (e.g., Frings, 2010;Frings, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2007;Hommel, 2005;Mayr & Buchner, 2006;Mayr, Buchner, & Dentale, 2009;Rothermund, Wentura, & De Houwer, 2005). Distractor-response binding is typically tested with a paradigm where a prime target is presented before a probe target, each one being presented simultaneously with a distractor.…”

Selection in touch: Negative priming with tactile stimuli

“…For example, in NP experiments from our laboratory using visual selection tasks, the average NP effect size is between dz 0.20 to dz 0.50 (e.g., Frings, 2006;Frings & Wentura, 2006a, 2006bFrings & Wühr, 2007). In contrast, studies using auditory stimuli have produced quite large NP effect sizes, from dz 0.85 to dz 1.08 (Mayr & Buchner, 2006). The reason for these differences in NP, however, might not be a modality-specific effect.…”

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

“…Residual inhibition of the former distractor stimulus results in a disadvantage if a response to this inhibited stimulus is required on the probe 1,11 . On the other hand, negative priming can be the result of retrieval mechanisms 12,13 . For example, Neill assumed that the prime distractor is encoded together with a do-not-respond tag at the prime, which is then retrieved and in turn conflicts with responding to this stimulus if it is repeated as the probe target 14 .…”