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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |