Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor–response bindings

Abstract

Distractor inhibition and distractor-response binding were investigated in two experiments by analyzing distractor repetition benefits and their interaction with response repetition effects in a sequential-priming paradigm. Distractor repetition benefits were larger for distractors that were incompatible with the to-be-executed response (task-related distractors) than for distractors that were not assigned to a response (neutral distractors), indicating that the strength of distractor inhibition was a function of response interference for the distractors. In contrast, the distractor-response bindings were found to be of equal strength for both task-related and neutral distractors. Thus, differences in the strengths of distractor inhibition did not affect the integration of distractors with responses into event files. Instead, our results suggest that distractor-response binding and distractor inhibition are independent mechanisms that are recruited for the automatization of behavior and action control.

Baroreceptor activity impacts upon controlled but not automatic distractor processing

“…Furthermore, it is worth noting that the NP and DRB effect differ in reliability and effect size. While both cognitive effects proofed to be robust (for NP see for example Fox, 1995;May, Kane & Hasher, 1995; for DRB see for example Frings, Moeller, & Rothermund, 2013;Giesen et al, 2012;Moeller & Frings, 2011), the NP usually displays a small reliability (e.g., Bestgen & Dupont, 2000;Friedman, & Miyake, 2004;Park et al, 1996;Titz, Behrendt, Hasselhorn, & Schmuck, 2003). Conforming to this, NP and DRB differed with respect to effect sizes.…”

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

“…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.…”

“…One advantage over the negative priming paradigm is that the paradigm of distractor-response binding can differentiate between effects of distractor inhibition and response retrieval 24 . While retrieval effects are evidenced by an interaction of response repetition and distractor repetition, distractor inhibition is measured as the main effect of distractor repetition.…”

The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs

“…For instance, if DFDFD is the prime, then there is only one possible stimulus that can serve as a complete repetition probe (i.e., DFDFD), whereas there were always two possibilities for the remaining conditions. Note, however, that: (a) the same binding effects are observed without this transitional frequency confound (e.g., Giesen, Frings, & Rothermund, 2012), and (b) the PEP model is (currently) unable to learn regularities across trials (see Discussion). Thus, this potential bias is not problematic for the original finding or the current simulation.…”