Cargando…

The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses

Binding theories assume that features of stimuli and executed responses can be integrated together in one event file (Hommel, Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216, 1998; Hommel, Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500, 2004). Every reencounter with one or more of the stored features leads to an automatic retrieval o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laub, Ruth, Merz, Simon, Dröschel, Helena, Frings, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33768482
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02249-6
_version_ 1783709872938811392
author Laub, Ruth
Merz, Simon
Dröschel, Helena
Frings, Christian
author_facet Laub, Ruth
Merz, Simon
Dröschel, Helena
Frings, Christian
author_sort Laub, Ruth
collection PubMed
description Binding theories assume that features of stimuli and executed responses can be integrated together in one event file (Hommel, Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216, 1998; Hommel, Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500, 2004). Every reencounter with one or more of the stored features leads to an automatic retrieval of the previously constructed event file and hence of the response—even the repetition of a task-irrelevant distractor stimulus can retrieve a previously encoded response. This so-called distractor–response binding effect is typically investigated using a sequential prime-probe design that allows the orthogonal variation of response relation (response repetition vs. resporrevertnse change) and distractor relation (distractor repetition vs. distractor change), while probe response times and error rates are measured as dependent variable. Previous research has shown that task-relevant stimuli can be represented at different levels (e.g., perceptual and conceptual; see Henson et al., Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384, 2014), yet it is not clear at which level of representation distractor stimuli are processed. In the present study, we focused on the level of representation of response-irrelevant distractor stimuli. To this end, a crossmodal distractor–response binding paradigm was used that enables the differentiation between the perceptual and conceptual representation of the distractor by allowing the systematic repetition and change of conceptual distractor features independent of perceptual repetitions. The results suggest that the repetition of perceptual distractor features is indispensable for the initiation of the retrieval process while the sole repetition of conceptual distractor features is not sufficient to start the retrieval process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8213552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82135522021-07-01 The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses Laub, Ruth Merz, Simon Dröschel, Helena Frings, Christian Atten Percept Psychophys Article Binding theories assume that features of stimuli and executed responses can be integrated together in one event file (Hommel, Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216, 1998; Hommel, Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500, 2004). Every reencounter with one or more of the stored features leads to an automatic retrieval of the previously constructed event file and hence of the response—even the repetition of a task-irrelevant distractor stimulus can retrieve a previously encoded response. This so-called distractor–response binding effect is typically investigated using a sequential prime-probe design that allows the orthogonal variation of response relation (response repetition vs. resporrevertnse change) and distractor relation (distractor repetition vs. distractor change), while probe response times and error rates are measured as dependent variable. Previous research has shown that task-relevant stimuli can be represented at different levels (e.g., perceptual and conceptual; see Henson et al., Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384, 2014), yet it is not clear at which level of representation distractor stimuli are processed. In the present study, we focused on the level of representation of response-irrelevant distractor stimuli. To this end, a crossmodal distractor–response binding paradigm was used that enables the differentiation between the perceptual and conceptual representation of the distractor by allowing the systematic repetition and change of conceptual distractor features independent of perceptual repetitions. The results suggest that the repetition of perceptual distractor features is indispensable for the initiation of the retrieval process while the sole repetition of conceptual distractor features is not sufficient to start the retrieval process. Springer US 2021-03-25 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8213552/ /pubmed/33768482 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02249-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Laub, Ruth
Merz, Simon
Dröschel, Helena
Frings, Christian
The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses
title The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses
title_full The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses
title_fullStr The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses
title_full_unstemmed The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses
title_short The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—Distractor–response binding within and between the senses
title_sort level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—distractor–response binding within and between the senses
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33768482
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02249-6
work_keys_str_mv AT laubruth thelevelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT merzsimon thelevelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT droschelhelena thelevelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT fringschristian thelevelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT laubruth levelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT merzsimon levelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT droschelhelena levelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses
AT fringschristian levelofrepresentationofirrelevantstimulidistractorresponsebindingwithinandbetweenthesenses