The Control of Event-File Management

Hommel, Bernhard

doi:10.5334/joc.187

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Building on previous work that modulated perceptual grouping in prime and probe displays and in line with recent theorizing of Hommel ( 2022 ), we suggest that perceptual grouping (here the principle of common region) modulates event file retrieval irrespective of binding processes while event file binding itself was not significantly modulated by grouping. Our results support the importance of recent theorizing that binding and retrieval are separate processes contributing to binding effects individually ( Frings et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The Theory of Event Coding (TEC, Hommel et al, 2001 ) assumes that perception and action actually refer to the same kind of sensorimotor activity (see also Hommel, 2009 ). That is, perception and action both require a systematic movement of one’s body to elicit sensory information from the environment ( Hommel, 2022 ). Actions are assumed to be represented as their anticipated perceptual effects – an assumption in line with the ideo-motor framework (see Shin et al, 2010, for a review ).…”

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

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our data suggest that integration of features is a rather automatic process that is not modulated by predictability while event file retrieval is. This fits with recent theorizing on the role of interindividual differences on S-R binding effects (Hommel, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Predictability reduces event file retrieval

Schmalbrock

Hommel

Münchau

et al. 2022

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing consensus that stimulus–response bindings (event files) play a central role in human action control. Here, we investigated how the integration and the retrieval of event files are affected by the predictability of stimulus components of event files. We used the distractor–response binding paradigm, in which nominally task-irrelevant distractors are repeated or alternated from a prime to a probe display. The typical outcome of these kinds of tasks is that the effects of distractor repetition and response repetition interact: Performance is worse if the distractor repeats but the response does not, or vice versa. This partial-repetition effect was reduced when the distractor was highly predictable (Experiment 1). Separate manipulations of distractor predictability in the prime and probe trial revealed that this pattern was only replicated if the probe distractors were predictable (Experiment 2b, 3), but not if prime distractors were predictable (Experiment 2a). This suggests that stimulus predictability does not affect the integration of distractor information into event files, but the retrieval of these files when one or more of the integrated features are repeated. We take our findings to support theoretical claims that integration and retrieval of event files might differ concerning their sensitivity to top-down factors.

show abstract

“…Particularly, the BRAC framework postulates several processes allowing the top-down control of event-files (e.g., different levels of action representation, attentional weighting of stimulus features, and other forms of meta-cognitive control; Frings et al, 2020). Yet, there is scarce knowledge about the mechanisms by which intentional control over event-files can specifically impact processes of feature binding and retrieval (see Hommel, 2022). At present, although the binding of information into an even-file seems to be unselective (i.e., to happen automatically; see work on distractor-response binding; see Hommel, 2022, for a review), one study showed that the saliency of a stimulus might affect corresponding S-R bindings (Schmalbrock et al, 2021).…”

Section: Intentional Control Over Binding and Retrieval In Action Con...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hard to forget: No Directed Forgetting of Stimulus-Response Associations

Dames¹,

Ragni²,

Kiesel³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can intentionally forget previously-learned declarative information such as words: Memory for to-be-remembered (TBR) words is typically better than for to-be-forgotten (TBF) ones (directed forgetting effect). The role of intention in the learning and retrieval of procedural bindings is, however, less clear. Here, we combined item-method directed forgetting and item-specific S-R priming to investigate whether people have intentional control over the formation and/or retrieval of stimulus-response (S-R) associations: By categorizing stimuli in a learning phase participants formed S-R associations. A memory cue following participants’ responses indicated to remember or forget the stimulus for a later memory test. In the following test phase, participants responded to the same stimuli, but the required response item-specifically repeated or switched. In four experiments, reaction time differences between item-specific repetitions and switches (item-specific S-R effect) did not differ between TBR and TBF stimuli. This was the case when S-R associations already existed before the memory instruction was given (Exp. 1), when stimuli, responses, and memory cues were paired multiple times (Exp. 2), when forming new S-R associations (Exp. 3), and when categorizing word stimuli rather than images (Exp. 4). Thus, intentionally up- and/or downregulating the memory strength of a stimulus representation does not necessarily go hand in hand with the strengthening of the associated response. These results can be explained by two accounts: either top-down control can selectively operate on different levels of representations (and does not incidentally affect an entire event file) or that separate memory systems store procedural and declarative content.

show abstract

The Control of Event-File Management

Cited by 19 publications

References 84 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

Predictability reduces event file retrieval

Hard to forget: No Directed Forgetting of Stimulus-Response Associations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About