On the Decay of Distractor-Response Episodes

Abstract

Distractor-to-distractor repetition effects can be explained by retrieval and/or inhibitory processes. Interestingly, the two accounts predict different effects from repeated distractors: Inhibition theories always predict benefits, whereas stimulus-response-retrieval theories predict an interaction of response repetition and distractor repetitions, resulting in benefits with response repetitions and costs with response changes. In the present experiment the time-course and the temporal separability of a stimulus-response episode on distractor-to-distractor repetitions were analyzed. The results showed that the interaction of response repetition and distractor repetitions was affected by a simple decay function. In addition, distractor repetition effects were affected by the temporal separability. In concert, the data yield evidence for retrieval-based explanations of distractor-to-distractor repetitions.

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

“…On the other hand, it is crucial that the time between prime response and probe stimulus onset is sufficiently short. No effect of distractor-response binding was found with an onset asynchrony of 1,500 msec 30 . Another prerequisite seems to be the presentation of target and distractor in a grouped fashion 19,21 .…”

“…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.…”

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

“…Although S-R effects can be seen for unattended stimuli, these effects appear more short-lived. For example, distractorto-distractor effects in an immediate repetition paradigm were seen with a 500-ms lag between encoding and retrieval, but not when the lag was increased to 2000 ms (Frings, 2011). Thus, under strong attentional conditions, S-R bindings might be relatively short-lived relative to those formed in the present attended but task-irrelevant conditions.…”

“…Both facilitation (i.e., faster RTs for congruent than for novel trials) and interference (i.e., slower RTs for incongruent than for novel trials) effects have been seen in the literature (e.g., Hommel, 1998;Horner & Henson, 2009, 2011Rothermund et al, 2005), and the circumstances under which these opposing effects emerge appears complex (Waszak & Hommel, 2007). It is worth noting that other sources of positive priming, for example perceptual/conceptual priming, may also modulate RTs, diminishing the likelihood of seeing interference effects.…”

Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated

“…Furthermore, the binding of stimuli and responses is not restricted to stimulus features that are relevant for the selection of an action. Recent studies have found that even irrelevant or distracting elements of a situation can become associated with a response given to another object, a phenomenon that has been labeled distractor-response binding (e.g., Frings, 2010;Frings, Rothermund, & Wentura, 2007;Hommel, 2005;Mayr & Buchner, 2006;Mayr, Buchner, & Dentale, 2009;Rothermund, Wentura, & De Houwer, 2005). Distractor-response binding is typically tested with a paradigm where a prime target is presented before a probe target, each one being presented simultaneously with a distractor.…”