Integrating salience and action – Increased integration strength through salience

Schmalbrock, Philip; Laub, Ruth; Frings, Christian

doi:10.1080/13506285.2020.1871455

Cited by 19 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are intriguing on a theoretical level because they add to a growing body of literature that underlines that S-R binding can be separated into two separate processes ( Laub et al, 2018 ; Mocke et al, 2020 ; Schmalbrock et al, 2021 ; Schmalbrock & Frings, 2021 ). Our results are also in line with previous conceptualizations of a rather automatic binding mechanism that almost indiscriminately binds stimuli in close spatial or temporal proximity with a response ( Hommel, 2004 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Or Hommel et al ( 2014 ) reported that cuing a feature dimension affected only retrieval but not binding. Several other publications also point to the necessity to distinguish between binding and retrieval processes ( Hommel et al, 2014 ; Memelink & Hommel, 2013 ; Mocke et al, 2020 ; Schmalbrock et al, 2021 ; Schmalbrock & Frings, Manuscript submitted for publication, 2021 ). However, the studies by Laub et al ( 2018 ) and Hommel et al ( 2014 ) highlight modulators can target binding and retrieval independently from each other and may have different impacts on both processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Belongs Together Retrieves Together – The Role of Perceptual Grouping in Stimulus-Response Binding and Retrieval

Schmalbrock

Kiesel

Frings

2022

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays there is consensus that stimulus and response features are partially represented in the same coding format furthering the binding of these features into event files. If some or all features comprised in an event file repeat later, the whole file can be retrieved thereby modulating ongoing performance (leading to so-called stimulus-response binding effects). Stimulus-response binding effects are usually investigated in sequential priming paradigms where it is assumed that binding occurs in the prime and retrieval in the probe. Importantly, binding and retrieval are not exclusive for targets but also apply to distractor stimuli. A previous study showed that distractor-binding effects were affected by perceptual grouping: Binding effects were significantly larger when stimuli were grouped compared to ungrouped stimuli. Recent theorizing suggests that binding and retrieval are two separate processes that can be individually modulated. Against this background, it is not possible to pinpoint the modulating influence of perceptual grouping on either process at this point in time. Therefore, we adapted the previous study design in two experiments to observe the effect of perceptual grouping on both processes in isolation. Results indicate that perceptual grouping did not impact binding but retrieval: Distractor-response retrieval was reduced when target and distractor were presented in separate objects. Our results thus support recent theorizing on the separation of binding and retrieval.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Belongs Together Retrieves Together – The Role of Perceptual Grouping in Stimulus-Response Binding and Retrieval

Schmalbrock

Kiesel

Frings

2022

Journal of Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So far, there seem to exist only two exceptions to this general picture of a high degree of non-selectivity in binding features. First, there are some indications that more salient stimuli might be associated with stronger binding-related effects both in stimulus-response binding ( Schmalbrock, Laub & Frings, 2021 ) and in action-effect binding ( Dutzi & Hommel, 2009 ). Second, task-relevance of stimulus dimensions has played an important role from the very first study on ( Hommel, 1998 )—where partial-repetition costs were more pronounced for the relation between the response and features of the dimension that defined S2 (shape or color) than for the relation between the response and features of other, task-irrelevant dimensions (color and shape, respectively).…”

Section: Control Of Bindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Control of Event-File Management

Hommel

2022

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Theory of Event Coding, both perceived and self-produced events are coded by binding codes of the features of these events into event files. Here I argue that distinguishing between the actual binding process and the retrieval of event files is empirically difficult but theoretically important. As a first step towards disentangling these processes, I provide a brief overview of what the available evidence tells us with respect to the control of the binding process and the control of the retrieval process. I argue that there is not much evidence for selectivity of the binding process: Various kinds of stimuli and actions seem to be spontaneously integrated under various conditions, and there is increasing evidence that emotions, task instructions, and task context are coded into event files as well. On the other hand, there is increasing evidence for a high degree of selectivity of the retrieval process, suggesting that most if not all observations of effective impact on event files reflect an impact on retrieval, but not binding proper. I conclude by pointing out open questions and issues.

show abstract

“…Integration refers to the creation of an event file, while retrieval refers to the point in time after integration where the event file is retrieved and may then affect performance. Both processes are also suggestible to modulating influences by top-down (e.g., task-instruction, Memelink & Hommel, 2013 ) and/or bottom-up (e.g., salience, Schmalbrock et al, 2021 ) modulators. Modulation on either part of the process may increase binding by boosting or decreasing integration or retrieval strength.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies on S–R integration demonstrate that increased priority (cf. Zelinsky & Bisley, 2015 ) through top-down or bottom-up manipulation increases integration strength of a stimulus feature (Memelink & Hommel, 2013 ; Schmalbrock et al, 2021 ) and thus strengthens S–R binding. Given that TEC assumes that perceiving a stimulus and acting upon it are essentially the same thing it might be possible that increasing the priority of any feature—stimulus or response—increases integration strength.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal expectancy modulates stimulus–response integration

Schmalbrock

Frings

2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event. If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. Yet the role of foreperiods has so far not been investigated in action control. Thus, we investigated the influence of foreperiod on the integration of action-perception features. Participants worked through a standard distractor–response binding paradigm where two consecutive responses are made towards target letters while distractor letters are present. Responses and/or distractors can repeat or change from first to second display, leading to partial repetition costs when only some features repeat or repetition benefits when all features repeat (the difference constituting distractor–response binding). To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we also introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. We observed that distractor–response binding increased with increasing foreperiod duration, and speculate that this was driven by an increase in motor readiness induced by temporal expectancy.

show abstract

Integrating salience and action – Increased integration strength through salience

Cited by 19 publications

References 46 publications

What Belongs Together Retrieves Together – The Role of Perceptual Grouping in Stimulus-Response Binding and Retrieval

What Belongs Together Retrieves Together – The Role of Perceptual Grouping in Stimulus-Response Binding and Retrieval

The Control of Event-File Management

Temporal expectancy modulates stimulus–response integration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About