Instruction-induced feature binding

Wenke, Dorit; Gaschler, Robert; Nattkemper, Dieter

doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0038-y

Cited by 78 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, a plan that is implemented on the mere basis of instructions, not only can lead to automatic response activations (e.g., Everaert et al, 2014), but can also bias attention toward the stimuli represented in that plan. While circumstantial evidence already suggested this possibility (Wenke et al, 2007), the present study offers clear-cut evidence that instructed S-R mappings can indeed affect behavior at early stages of attention allocation. Second, the present study offers additional insights in the nature of the S-R associations that a plan includes.…”

supporting

confidence: 53%

“…While the impact of future plans on attention remains to be determined, research on response-compatibility effects demonstrated that a plan about a future action or task that is merely based on the implementation of instructions can lead to automatic response activations (CohenKdoshay & Meiran, 2007;De Houwer, Beckers, Vandorpe & Custers, 2005;Everaert, Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014;Liefooghe, De Houwer and Wenke, 2013;Liefooghe, Wenke, & De Houwer, 2012;Meiran & Cohen-Kdoshay, 2012;Meiran, Pereg, Kessler, Cole, & Braver, in press;Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014;Waszak, Pfister, & Kiesel, 2013;Wenke, Gaschler, & Nattkemper, 2007;Wenke, De Houwer, De Winne, & Liefooghe, in press). A common assumption in this line of research is that the cognitive system can prepare itself for a future task on the basis of instructions without any practice or experience (Meiran, Cole, & Brever, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Wenke et al (2007) did observe an IBCE between an inducer task, which instructed a left or right response to a letterstimulus, and a diagnostic task in which participants needed to judge the size of a stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

Tibboel

Liefooghe

Houwer

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though there is ample evidence that planning future actions plays a role in attentional processing (e.g., Downing, 2000;Soto et al., 2008), it is not clear to what extent planning in itself (rather than the prior experience of the planned actions) controls attention. We suggest that attention can be biased towards stimuli that are associated with instructions for tasks that will be performed in the future even if those tasks have not yet been experienced. We performed two experiments in which participants receive instructions in which some objects were associated with a response (i.e., instructed S-R objects; Experiment 1) or a stimulus property (i.e., instructed S-S objects; Experiment 2) whereas control objects were not. However, before participants were required to perform the S-R task (Experiment 1) or perform an S-S memory task (Experiment 2), they performed a visual probe task in which target objects and control objects served as irrelevant cues.Our results show that attention was biased towards the S-R objects (compared to control stimuli) but not to S-S objects. These findings suggest that future plans can bias attention toward specific stimuli, but only when these stimuli are associated with a specific action. We discuss these findings in light of research concerning automatic effects of instructions and theories that view attention as a selectionfor-action mechanism.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

Tibboel

Liefooghe

Houwer

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings of De Houwer et al (2005) and Wenke et al (2007Wenke et al ( , 2009 suggest that a task-set that is based solely on instructed S-R mappings can influence performance even when the instructed mappings are irrelevant for the current task. However, it is not entirely clear to which extent the effects in these studies are indeed due to the automatic activation of a task-irrelevant response.…”

Section: Instruction-based Response Activationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants first performed the location-irrelevant task and were asked to keep the S-R mappings of the location-relevant tasks active because they may have to perform these tasks at any time. In reality, the stimuli for the location-relevant tasks never Wenke and colleagues (Wenke, Gaschler, & Nattkemper, 2007;Wenke, Gaschler, Nattkemper, & Frensch, 2009) used a procedure in which participants first received arbitrary S-R mappings of a letter task (e.g., if P press left key; if L press right key). These mappings were to be applied in a delayed letter task, in which one of the letters was presented and participants had to respond on the basis of the instructed S-R mappings.…”

Section: Instruction-based Response Activationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects.

Liefooghe¹,

Wenke²,

Houwer³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

103

285

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the functional characteristics of task-sets that were never applied before and were formed only on the basis of instructions. We tested if such task-sets could elicit a task-rule congruency effect, which implies the automatic activation of responses in the context of another task. To this end, a novel procedure was developed that revealed instruction-based task-rule congruency effects in two experiments. Although the effect seems quite general (Experiment 1) it still necessitates the formation of a task-set as it cannot be induced by the mere maintenance of instructions in declarative working memory (Experiment 2). We conclude that a task-set representing only key features of an upcoming task can be formed on the basis of instructions alone to such a degree that it can automatically trigger a response tendency in another task. Implications of our results for the impact of instructions on performance in general, and for the occurrence of task-rule congruency effects in particular, are discussed.Keywords: task-set, task switching, task-rule congruency, instructions INSTRUCTION-BASED TASK-RULE CONGRUENCY EFFECTS 3 Instruction-based task-rule congruency effectsGoal-directed behavior is assumed to be based on task-sets that specify and group the control settings of different task-related processes, such as stimulus identification, response selection, and response execution (e.g., Vandierendonck, Liefooghe, & Verbruggen, 2010).While the functional properties of task-sets have been studied extensively in the taskswitching paradigm (see, Kiesel et al., 2010;Monsell, 2003;Vandierendonck et al., 2010 for reviews), only little is known on how task-sets are formed when the instructions of a particular task are presented. This is surprising because it seems obvious that instructions play an important role, for instance, by indicating which task to perform or how a task must be performed. Accordingly, the present study further investigated the functional characteristics of task-sets formed only on the basis of instructions. We tested if a task-set that is formed on the basis of instructions meant for a particular task that has not yet been executed, can elicit automatic response tendencies despite being irrelevant in the context of another task. This was done by using the task-rule congruency effect. Task-Rule CongruencyThe task-rule congruency effect is a robust finding in task-switching studies that require participants to switch between two tasks (e.g., shape or color judgment) that share stimuli (e.g., colored shapes) and responses (e.g., a left or right response key; see, Kiesel et al., 2010;Monsell, 2003; Vandierendonck et al., 2010 for reviews). Each response thus has two -meanings‖ (e.g., circle and red for the left response and square and green for the right response) and stimuli trigger these two meanings, with one related to the relevant task and the other related to the irrelevant task. The task-rule congruency effect refers to the finding that RTs are shorter when both respo...

show abstract

The implementation of verbal instructions: An fMRI study

Hartstra

Kühn

Verguts

et al. 2010

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In everyday life, our actions are often guided by verbal instructions. Usually, we can implement such instructions immediately without trial and error learning. This raises the fundamental question how verbal instructions are transformed into efficient motor behavior. The aim of this study was to gain deeper insights into the implementation of verbal instructions both on a neural and a cognitive level. To this end, we devised an fMRI experiment in which participants were required to permanently implement new stimulus-response (S-R) mappings and object-color (O-C) mappings. This enabled us to test whether there are brain areas that are specific to the implementation of newly instructed S-R mappings or whether newly instructed rules are represented independently from the specific content. Furthermore, we could test which brain areas are involved in the processing of S-R mappings when compared with O-C mappings. Our results suggest that only one brain area, the left inferior frontal junction (IFJ), was sensitive to the novelty of instructions regardless of whether these instructions conveyed S-R or O-C mappings. Furthermore, our results show that instructions conveying S-R mapping involve a network of brain areas, including pre-PMd, M1, and IPS that was not sensitive to the novelty of the instructions. Therefore, we conclude that the implementation of verbal instructions results from an interplay of a brain areas that represent novel rulelike information in domain general terms and brain areas that are specific to S-R rules.

show abstract

Instruction-induced feature binding

Cited by 78 publications

References 38 publications

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects.

The implementation of verbal instructions: An fMRI study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About