Temporal expectancy modulates stimulus–response integration

Abstract

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.

Increased display complexity reveals effects of salience in action control.

“…In the present study, salience was solely applied to the prime display but nevertheless affected the S–R binding effects that are computed using probe performance. This result confirms once again that, although both contribute to the S–R binding effect, integration, and retrieval are independent in the sense that a modulation applied to one but not the other processes can still affect the S–R binding process (i.e., the independence of integration and retrieval modulations; Frings et al, 2020; Laub et al, 2018; Schmalbrock & Frings, 2022) which is a key assumption of the BRAC framework. Yet, it seems obvious that salience might also affect probe retrieval—perhaps in the same way as prime integration, namely that sparse probes are unaffected by salience whereas dense probes are affected by salience.…”

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

“…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 ).…”

Towards a systematization of brain oscillatory activity in actions

“…Crucially, the event-file concept is neither restricted to working memory or long-term memory processes. It reflects a structure containing episodic information 15 modulated by attentional processes 6,115,116 . There is a prominent role of ABA synchronization and desynchronization processes in episodic memory retrieval 98 .…”