From simple to complex actions: Response–response bindings as a new approach to action sequences.

Abstract

Binding between stimulus features and between stimuli and responses has been discussed as a central mechanism in human action control: Carrying out a response to a stimulus leads to bindings between stimulus and response features, so that repetition of one can retrieve the other later on. We find it intriguing that all discussions to date focus either on stimulus-stimulus or on stimulus-response bindings. Here we argue that response-response bindings are equally relevant for action control, if binding really plays a role in action representation. Hence, the present study investigates whether the same kind of integration and retrieval as observed between stimuli and responses is also possible between two individual responses pursuing different goals. A new design including sequential responses to a Task A and a Task B, was developed to analyze bindings between separately planned and executed responses. In two experiments, the results indicated retrieval of the response to Task B as a result of the repetition of the response to Task A. This is the first evidence for an integration of two separately planned responses in the same event representation. The result has implications for the structure of human action representation, indicating binding of individual actions in higher order representations, and suggests that binding is an even more ubiquitous mechanism in action control than previously shown. (PsycINFO Database Record

Watching the brain as it (un)binds: Beta synchronization relates to distractor-response binding

“…Targetresponse bindings are still measurable after four seconds following integration (Hommel & Colzato, 2004) and have been shown to completely decay within five to six seconds . Response-effect bindings (Herwig & Waszak, 2012) and also bindings between individually planned and executed responses (Moeller & Frings, 2019) were even reported after a delay of six seconds. If the decay function of bindings is generally related with beta ERS, we would expect a similar correlation between binding effects and beta ERS as found in the present study either for longer or for later time windows regarding target or effect stimuli.…”

Response–response binding across effector-set switches

“…It has been suggested that event representation can be hierarchically structured. Not only are microevents of a single response represented via bindings of their elements (i.e., SR bindings), but the same micro-events may also be integrated in larger-scale representations (see Hommel et al, 2001;Moeller & Frings, 2019a, b, for a similar view regarding the representation of task pairs: Hirsch, Nolden, & Koch, 2017). From this perspective, each Response A and B in our study can be understood as one micro-event, which were integrated with each other in a larger-scale representation for each prime.…”

“…Participants The effect sizes of RR-binding effects [computed as t/sqrt(n)] were large (0.77) on average in former studies (Moeller & Frings, 2019a, b). If RR integration is not impaired by an effector switch, we therefore expected to find an effect of d = 0.77.…”

“…Recently, it has been shown that not only SR binding in the representation of individual actions, but also binding between successive responses, plays a role in action control (RR bindings;Moeller & Frings, 2019a, b). Participants executed pairs of responses, in which planning of the second response was possible only after the first response had been executed.…”

“…Thus, the present study was designed to test whether successively planned and executed responses are also integrated if they are carried out by different effector sets. On the basis of the study by Moeller and Frings (2019a), we used a prime-probe design that included two responses (A and B) to each prime and each probe. One response was always executed by the hands, and the other by the feet.…”