Frankly, My Error, I Don’t Give a Damn: Retrieval of Goal-Based but Not Coactivation-Based Bindings after Erroneous Responses

Abstract

Previous studies demonstrated binding and retrieval of stimuli and correct responses even for those episodes in which the actual response was wrong (goal-based binding and retrieval). In the current study, we tested whether binding based on a co-activation of stimuli and erroneous responses occurred simultaneously with goal-based binding, which could have been masked by a more efficient retrieval of goal-based bindings in previous studies. In a pre-registered experiment (n = 62), we employed a sequential prime-probe design with a three-choice colour categorisation task. Including three different responses in the task allowed us to conduct separate tests for stimulus-based episodic retrieval of either the correct response (goal-based) or of the actual erroneous response (coactivation-based) after committing an error. Replicating previous findings, our study provides support for goal-based binding of stimuli and correct responses after errors, while showing that there is no independent coactivation-based binding of the erroneous response itself.

Accounting for Proportion Congruency Effects in the Stroop Task in a Confounded Setup: Retrieval of Stimulus-Response Episodes Explains it All

“…A basketball player may realize that trying to mislead an opponent by initiating a fake move with the head in a certain direction and then actually executing the opposite behavior with the body may be an efficient trick if applied rarely, but may lose its effect if applied on too many occasions ( Güldenpenning et al, 2018 , 2020 ). There are many possible explanations for this inverse relation between frequency and effectiveness of a deceptive move: For instance, after having been tricked, the opponent might exert cognitive control and focus more on the relevant information and thus become insensitive to the irrelevant movement; alternatively, the fake move might become associated not just with the erroneous response but also with the correct movement that should have been executed in hindsight, so that repeating the fake move will automatically trigger a retrieval of the efficient correct move (this is exactly what has been observed in two recent studies demonstrating goal-based retrieval of responses after errors, see Foerster et al, 2021 ; Parmar et al, 2022 ). Or it might result from associative contingency learning.…”

What is left after an error? Towards a comprehensive account of goal-based binding and retrieval

“…Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of paired differences (CI PD; supported this empirical strategy by proposing that binding would only occur for successful responses (Hommel, 2005). The major assumption of the success-based account was only recently put to test by assessing binding and retrieval for action slips (Foerster et al, 2022a;Foerster et al, 2021;Parmar et al, 2022). For stimulus-response binding, the available evidence clearly supports an alternative, goalbased account of binding.…”

“…Findings for binding between features of stimuli and responses (i.e., stimulus-response binding) clearly favoured the goal-based account, suggesting that binding for action slips operates on codes of the intended, correct response rather than the erroneous response that had actually been executed (Exp. 1 in Foerster et al, 2022a;Foerster et al, 2021;Parmar et al, 2022). For binding between features of responses and their effects (i.e., response-effect binding), by contrast, results suggested co-activation-based bindings between the erroneous response and its following sensory effect (Exp.…”

“…Second, encountering these stimuli again retrieves any bound actions, facilitating their selection and execution. Recent studies demonstrated that even if actions go awry, binding and retrieval processes operate swiftly as a corrective force (Foerster, et al, 2022a;Foerster et al, 2021;Parmar et al, 2022). That is, if agents commit an error, the correct response is still bound to relevant and irrelevant stimuli.…”

Core Mechanisms in Action Control: Binding and Retrieval

“…Interestingly, Parmar and colleagues ( 2022 ) observed that erroneous responses are not retrieved but that the correct response (intended action goal) is included in the event file. This observation can be accounted for by the results of Foerster and colleagues ( 2022 ), who demonstrated the control states induced by previous errors are bound and retrieved by stimuli.…”