Long-term response-stimulus associations can influence distractor-response bindings

Moeller, Birte; Frings, Christian

doi:10.5709/acp-0158-1

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, it has been speculated that bindings are individual steps in the learning process described by Logan (e.g. Logan, 1988;Moeller & Frings, 2014). These finding seems to point to a crucial characteristic enabling bindings to contribute to learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…It is difficult to distinguish instances and event files (e.g. Horner & Henson, 2009;Moeller & Frings, 2014). In fact, it has been speculated that bindings are individual steps in the learning process described by Logan (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This might be a further indication of similarity between Pavlovian conditioning and distractor-response binding-or learning and binding processes in general (see e.g. Giesen & Rothermund, 2014;Henson et al, 2014;Moeller & Frings, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

Singh

Moeller

Frings

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binding theories assume that a stimulus and a response made to it are bound together, as in the case of the theory of event coding, in an event file (Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(05), 849-937, 2001). This binding occurs after even a single encounter with the stimulus and the response. Repeating any part of the event file will cause the entire file to be retrieved. However not only are relevant stimuli bound with responses but even irrelevant stimuli that co-occur with the target can be bound with the response, and repeating such a distractor will result in the event file being retrieved. Yet previous studies focused on retrieval effects due to repetition of the same distractor. In this experiment we analysed whether perceptually similar distractors still influence actions due to distractor-based retrieval of responses. Thirty-one participants responded to the shape of the stimulus while ignoring the luminance (5 different shades of grey). The similarity of the stimulus luminance between two consecutive trials influenced response times on response repetition trials. Response repetition effects were particularly facilitated with exact repetitions of the irrelevant feature luminance, and the strength of this effect diminished with increasing dissimilarity of luminance in a linear fashion. We conclude that response-retrieval effects due to distractor bindings follow the rules of generalization, as discussed in the conditioning literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

Singh

Moeller

Frings

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The resulting association is typically labeled distractor-response binding (Frings et al, 2007;Rothermund et al, 2005). Distractor-response bindings have been documented after the very first encounter with a distractor stimulus and are likely the first step in an incidental association learning process (Moeller & Frings, 2014a). After response execution, these bindings survive for a brief period of time (approximately 1 second, see Frings, 2011).…”

Section: Binding Responses and Concurrent Distractor Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?

Moeller

Pfister

Kunde

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term bindings between responses and events in the environment ensure efficient behavioral control. This notion holds true for two particular types of binding: bindings between responses and response-irrelevant distractor stimuli that are present at the time of responding, and also for bindings between responses and the effects they cause. Although both types of binding have been extensively studied in the past, little is known about their interrelation. In three experiments, we analyzed both types of binding processes in a distractorresponse binding design and in a response-effect binding design, which yielded two central findings: (1) Distractorresponse binding and response-effect binding effects were observed not only in their native, but also in the corresponding Bnon-native^design, and (2) a manipulation of retrieval delay affected both types of bindings in a similar way. We suggest that a general and unselective mechanism is responsible for integrating own responses with a large variety of stimuli.

show abstract

“…Additional evidence for this response grouping within episodic events emerges from studies finding that responses to an object that was previously presented as a compatible distractor shows enhanced performance (facilitation of responses in the response binding effect) compared to incongruent ones (Moeller and Frings 2014b). When the distractor was strongly associated to the same response required for the target (e.g., an arrow pointing right or left for a right/left response), the distractor response binding effect was greater than in any other condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidences for better recall of congruent items in episodic memory

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A focus of recent research is to understand the role of our own response goals in the selection of information that will be encoded in episodic memory. For example, if we respond to a target in the presence of distractors, an important aspect under study is whether the distractor and the target share a common response (congruent) or not (incongruent). Some studies have found that congruent objects tend to be grouped together and stored in episodic memory, whereas other studies found that targets in the presence of incongruent distractors are remembered better. Our current research seems to support both views. We used a Tulving-based definition of episodic memory to differentiate memory from episodic and non-episodic traces. In this task, participants first had to classify a blue object as human or animal (target) which appeared in the presence of a green one (distractor) that could belong to the same category as the target (congruent); to the opposite one (incongruent); or to an irrelevant one (neutral). Later they had to report the identity (What), location (Where) and time (When) of both target objects (which had been previously responded to) and distractors (which had been ignored). Episodic memory was inferred when the three scene properties (identity, location and time) were correct. The measure of non-episodic memory consisted of those trials in which the identity was correctly remembered, but not the location or time. Our results show that episodic memory for congruent stimuli is significantly superior to that for incongruent ones. In sharp contrast, non-episodic measures found superior memory for targets in the presence of incongruent distractors. Our results demonstrate that response compatibility affects the encoding of episodic and non-episodic memory traces in different ways.

show abstract

Long-term response-stimulus associations can influence distractor-response bindings

Cited by 23 publications

References 57 publications

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?

Evidences for better recall of congruent items in episodic memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About