Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files

Moeller, Birte; Frings, Christian

doi:10.3758/s13414-014-0648-9

Cited by 78 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 3 is an example for data collected by Frings, Rothermund and Wentura (2007). Figure 4 summarizes the distractor-response binding effects of 33 experiments in different modalities 9,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][27][28][29][30] . The effects become larger with more difficult tasks and thus with longer response times.…”

Section: Representative Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…has on response integration with the distractor is of interest, this factor can be varied on the prime, while it is held constant on the probe. For an analysis of an influence on response retrieval, the factor can be manipulated on the probe while being kept constant on the prime 22,23 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It also modulates responses in location selection 20 . Various modulating factors of the effect evidence that distractor-response binding is not entirely automatic but influences behavior only under certain conditions [21][22][23] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Moeller

Schächinger

Frings

2014

JoVE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection tasks in which simple stimuli (e.g. letters) are presented and a target stimulus has to be selected against one or more distractor stimuli are frequently used in the research on human action control. One important question in these settings is how distractor stimuli, competing with the target stimulus for a response, influence actions. The distractor-response binding paradigm can be used to investigate this influence. It is particular useful to separately analyze response retrieval and distractor inhibition effects. Computer-based experiments are used to collect the data (reaction times and error rates). In a number of sequentially presented pairs of stimulus arrays (prime-probe design), participants respond to targets while ignoring distractor stimuli. Importantly, the factors response relation in the arrays of each pair (repetition vs. change) and distractor relation (repetition vs. change) are varied orthogonally. The repetition of the same distractor then has a different effect depending on response relation (repetition vs. change) between arrays. This result pattern can be explained by response retrieval due to distractor repetition. In addition, distractor inhibition effects are indicated by a general advantage due to distractor repetition. The described paradigm has proven useful to determine relevant parameters for response retrieval effects on human action. Video LinkThe video component of this article can be found at

show abstract

Section: Representative Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Moeller

Schächinger

Frings

2014

JoVE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following the findings of Rothermund et al, it has been shown that distractor stimuli at encoding can modulate repetition priming at retrieval even when the stimulus remains a distractor (Frings, Moeller, & Rothermund, 2013;Frings, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2007). Such distractor-to-distractor effects suggest that, under certain experimental conditions, attention and task relevance are not necessary for both the encoding and the retrieval of S-R bindings (though see Moeller & Frings, 2014). As in the literature for attended stimuli, these studies typically utilize a classification task at retrieval (e.g., the colour of a word), typically binary (e.g., Rothermund et al, 2005), though also four distinct response options have been used (e.g., Frings et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval of bindings between task-irrelevant stimuli and responses can facilitate behaviour under conditions of high response certainty

Horner

2016

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetition priming can be driven by the encoding and retrieval of stimulus–response (S–R) bindings. When a previously encoded S–R binding is retrieved, and is congruent with the response currently required, it can bias response-selection processes towards selecting the retrieved response, resulting in facilitation. Previous studies have used classification tasks at retrieval. Here, two (or more) response options are competing, and it is likely that any evidence (e.g., an S–R binding) in favour of one option will be utilized to effect a decision. Thus, S–R effects are likely to be seen when using such a task. It is unclear whether such effects can be seen under conditions of higher response certainty, when participants are explicitly cued to make a response. Across two experiments, evidence for a modulating influence of S–R bindings is seen despite using a response cueing method at retrieval to minimize response uncertainty and despite stimuli being task irrelevant. Finally, the results suggest that responses within these S–R bindings are coded at the level of left versus right hand, and not a more fine-grained within-hand thumb versus index finger. The results underline the resilience of S–R effects, suggesting that they are present even under conditions where no explicit object-oriented decision is required.

show abstract

“…A possibly more direct link between attention and episodic memory can be taken from recent work by Moeller and Frings (2014). Here the authors wondered whether the binding of responses to targets as part of their event files also reach distractors.…”

Section: Binding Of Target and Distractor Properties In An Episodic Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

An action to an object does not improve its episodic encoding but removes distraction.

Laurent

Ensslin

Marı́-Beffa

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is some debate as to whether responding to objects in our environment improves episodic memory or doesn't impact it. Some authors claim that actively encoding objects improves their representation in episodic memory. Conversely, episodic memory has also been shown to improve in passive conditions, suggesting that the action itself could interfere with the encoding process. This study looks at the impact of attention and action on episodic memory using a novel WWW task that includes information about object identity (What), spatial (Where) and temporal (When) properties. With this approach we studied the episodic memory of two types of object: Target, where attention or an action is defined, and Distractor, object to be ignored, following two selective states: active vs. passive selection. When targets were actively selected, we found no evidence of episodic memory enhancement compared to passive selection; but instead memory from irrelevant sources was suppressed. The pattern was replicated across a 2D static display and a more realistic 3D virtual environment. This selective attention effect on episodic memory was not observed on non-episodic measures, demonstrating a link between attention and the encoding of episodic experiences. Keywords:What-Where-When task; episodic memory; recognition and cue recall; sensorymotor implication; inhibition. 2In our daily experience we often need to avoid responding to objects in an automatic manner in order to pursue a goal. When shopping for groceries, we may find ourselves actively avoiding the cream cakes in order to get the items on the fruit and vegetable list. In a pub, we may need to suppress grasping other glasses on the table to pick our own. In many cases, these situations occur without us being aware of it; but at other times they can become part of our autobiographical experience. While most would agree that selected objects can be stored in episodic memory, it is less clear what happens with the objects that we reject. The purpose of this research is to study how the active selection of a target among distractors is represented in episodic memory.The most common view is that objects which are the targets of goal-directed actions receive a boost in processing that enhances their representations in episodic memory (Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1994;Zimmer, et al, 2001). But there is little account of how distractors are represented. Here we present a set of three experiments to demonstrate that, contrary to the previous view, responding to an object does not influence target encoding but acts instead upon distractors, inhibiting them and preventing them from being represented in the episodic trace. Measures of Episodic MemoryBefore we analyse how distractors can be affected by responses to the targets, we need to clarify a few theoretical points. The first problem that we encounter is the multiplicity of tasks used to measure episodic memory, and even the concept itself. Originally, Endel Tulving (1972) coined the term 'episodic memory' with reference to the ...

show abstract

Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files

Cited by 78 publications

References 72 publications

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Retrieval of bindings between task-irrelevant stimuli and responses can facilitate behaviour under conditions of high response certainty

An action to an object does not improve its episodic encoding but removes distraction.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About