Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated

Abstract

Distractor-based retrieval of event files was assessed with a sequential priming experiment using a four-choice identification task. Pictures or sounds of four different animals (frog, chicken, lamb, singing bird) had to be categorized by pressing one of four keys. On each trial, a target and a distractor stimulus were presented simultaneously in different modalities. The relevant modality switched randomly between trials. Distractor repetition effects were modulated by the response relation between the prime and probe: Repeating the prime distractor in the probe produced facilitation if the response repeated, but not if a different response had to be given in the prime and probe. Repeating the prime distractor in the probe led to an automatic retrieval of the prime response. Importantly, this distractor-based response retrieval effect also emerged for those sequences in which the modality of the repeated distractor was switched between the prime and probe. This cross-modal priming effect indicates that distractors were integrated into event files on a conceptual level and that response retrieval processes were mediated by conceptual codes of the distractor stimuli.

A new look on S–R associations: How S and R link

“…task, decision, action), the level of stimulus processing that is associated to the components remains unclear. There have been some studies supporting a relatively abstract stimulus representation (Biederman & Cooper, 1991;Biederman & Gerhardstein, 1993;Cave, Bost, & Cobb, 1996;Fiser & Biederman, 2001;Frings, Moeller, & Rothermund, 2013;Furmanski & Engel, 2000;Saggar, Miikkulainen, & Schnyer, 2010) but other studies have found support for some degree of stimulus specificity (Horner & Henson, 2011b;Schnyer et al, 2007;Srinivas, 1993;Vuilleumier, Henson, Driver, & Dolan, 2002). The purpose of the present study was to further our understanding of stimulus-response associations by investigating how the hierarchical modules on both sides of the association link interconnect.…”

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

“…Frings et al (2013) used pictures and sounds of animals as distractors. Distractor repetition trials were realized via repetition of animal identity, while distractor modality could change (e.g., from a picture to a sound).…”

“…Distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes has been shown with different stimuli (e.g., words, colours, pictures; Frings et al, 2007;Frings, Moeller, & Rothermund, 2013;Hommel, 1998;Hommel & Colzato, 2009;Mayr & Buchner, 2006;Moeller & Frings, 2011;Moeller, Rothermund, & Frings, 2012;Rothermund et al, 2005). However, in nearly all studies investigating distractorresponse binding effects, distractor repetition always implied a perceptually exact repetition of the distractor (see Frings et al, 2013, for an exception).…”

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

“…Hence, repeating a stimulus that was earlier integrated in an action plan leads to response facilitation if the same response has to be repeated and, conversely, it leads to response impairment if a different response is required. Research on stimulus-response bindings in general has uncovered a wide variety of stimulus-response associations that are integrated automatically (Frings et al, 2007;Frings, Moeller, & Rothermund, 2013;Hommel, 1998Hommel, , 2004Hommel et al, 2004;Horner & Henson, 2009, 2011Mayr & Buchner, 2006;Logan, 1988Logan, , 1990Waszak, Hommel, & Allport, 2004, for a recent review on stimulus-response binding in general, see Henson, Eckstein, Waszak, Frings, & Horner, 2014). The fact that not only currently relevant information is associated to own responses, but also additional response-irrelevant features, indicates that action plans readily accommodate any kind of environmental contingency.…”