Response–response binding across effector-set switches

Abstract

A single encounter of a response together with a stimulus results in short-lived binding between the stimulus and the response. A repetition of any part of such a stimulus-response episode can then retrieve the whole episode, including the response. Recent findings have shown that similar binding is also possible between two successive but independently planned manual responses, indicating that binding processes also play a role in the coordination of action sequences. Action coordination in everyday life often includes alternation between different effector sets. Yet switching effectors has been shown to result in very clear partitioning of actions. Thus, it is unclear whether responses carried out via different effector sets (feet and hands) are as easily integrated as responses via a single effector set (hands). In two experiments, we investigated whether response-response integration is possible across effector-set switches, and compared the binding effects across effector sets to those within one effector set. In a prime-probe design, participants executed two responses at the prime and the probe-the first via their hands and the second via their feet (Exp. 1), or the first via either hands or feet and the second via hands (Exp. 2). The data from both experiments indicated binding between responses, even if the actions were carried out via different effector sets. However, bindings between responses that were carried out via different effector sets were weaker than bindings between responses via a single effector set. We concluded that binding constitutes a main function of action sequences in human behavior.

The congruency sequence effect in a modified prime-probe task indexes response-general control.

“…The present findings extend our understanding of the relations, or bindings, in episodic memory that control processes employ to engender a CSE. Prior work has established that bindings form between different stimuli (Hommel, 1998), between stimuli and responses (Frings, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2007; Hommel, 1998), between different responses (Moeller & Frings, 2019a, 2019b), and even between stimuli and control processes (i.e., stimulus-control associations; Weissman et al, 2016; Whitehead, Pfeuffer, & Egner, 2020). Prior work has also shown that retrieving these sorts of bindings engenders the CSE (Hommel et al, 2004; Mayr, Awh, & Laurey, 2003; Weissman et al, 2016).…”

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

“…In addition, episodic bindings between responses and their effects (action effect learning, Foerster, Moeller, et al, 2021 ) might have a different logic due to a reversed temporal order in which the environmental event and response occur. Importantly, episodic binding and retrieval of response-response sequences (action sequence learning; Moeller & Frings, 2019a , b ) might also be a candidate for binding based on co-activation, since this kind of response sequence learning is more incidental rather than rule-based.…”

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

“…The analysis of this measure did also not support the account of bindings between the intended correct and the executed erroneous response. We still think that it would be worthwhile to pursue this research question further in paradigms that allow for an assessment of the hypothesized binding effects in RTs (Moeller & Frings, 2019a, 2019b, which we consider as a more powerful Goal-based binding and retrieval 29 measure in this context. The observation of binding and retrieval effects between the intended correct and the erroneous response in percentages of commission errors would imply that the repetition of a target would activate the appropriate response first, which in turn would lead to the retrieval of the bound response, which would then also be executed despite an existing activation of the appropriate response.…”

“…The described setup further allows to probe for an additional, provocative hypothesis on the fate of the erroneous response which may become bound to the intended correct response. Examinations on successful action episodes provided ample evidence that two individually planned and executed responses to different target stimuli can be bound together (Moeller & Frings, 2019a, 2019b.…”