Saccadic landing positions reveal that eye movements are affected by distractor-based retrieval

Abstract

Binding theories assume that stimulus and response features are integrated into short-lasting episodes and that upon repetition of any feature the whole episode is retrieved, thereby affecting performance. Such binding theories are nowadays the standard explanation for a wide range of action control tasks and aim to explain all simple actions, without making assumptions of effector specificity. Yet, it is unclear if eye movements are affected by integration and retrieval in the same way as manual responses. We asked participants to discriminate letters framed by irrelevant shapes. In Experiment 1, participants gave their responses with eye movements. Saccade landing positions showed a spatial error pattern consistent with predictions of binding theories. Saccadic latencies were not affected. In Experiment 2 with an increased interval between prime and probe, the error pattern diminished, again congruent with predictions of binding theories presuming quickly decaying retrieval effects. Experiment 3 used the same task as in Experiment 1, but participants executed their responses with manual key presses; again, we found a binding pattern in response accuracy. We conclude that eye movements and manual responses are affected by the same integration and retrieval processes, supporting the tacit assumption of binding theories to apply to any effector.

Another dimension! Using dimension weighting to observe integration and retrieval in localization performance.

“…In general, the absence of binding effects as proposed by action control theories has been discussed as being incongruent with theoretical assumptions made by binding approaches in action control (Hilchey et al, 2018; Huffman et al, 2018; Schöpper & Frings, 2022, 2023; Schöpper et al, 2020); yet, this pattern has been observed in attentional orienting paradigms investigating IOR multiple times (e.g., Kwak & Egeth, 1992; Taylor & Donnelly, 2002; see Huffman et al, 2018). Interestingly and congruent with action control theories, IOR can be masked by binding effects (Hilchey et al, 2018; Schöpper et al, 2022b; see also Schöpper & Frings, 2022) or response repetition heuristics (Christie & Klein, 2001; Klein, 2004), if the response is discriminatory toward sequentially presented stimuli (e.g., Taylor & Donnelly, 2002; Terry et al, 1994); this observation shares striking similarities with the observation that a discriminatory judgment can lead to binding effects (Huffman et al, 2018; Schöpper et al, 2020).…”

“…On one side, one might muse that overall response speed might have led to this pattern: Responses became faster from Experiments 1 to 3, while the effects became smaller from Experiments 1 to 3. Retrieval-based effects take time to emerge (Frings & Moeller, 2012; Schöpper et al, 2022a, 2022b); accordingly, retrieval in Experiment 1 might have had the most time to unfold. This is supported by larger IOR in Experiment 1 compared to Experiments 2 and 3, as IOR takes time to emerge as well (e.g., Chao et al, 2020; Panis & Schmidt, 2022; Schöpper & Frings, 2023; Taylor & Ivanoff, 2005).…”

“…Although S–R binding is typically completely absent in localization performance (e.g., Huffman et al, 2018), it can emerge in said kind of task under quite specific circumstances, for example, by introducing distractors (Hilchey, Pratt, & Lamy, 2019) or making postselective processing of the location feature necessary for responding (Schöpper et al, 2022a): If so, the effect size is similar to other medium-sized binding effects (e.g., d = 0.35 in a localization task in which postselective processing was necessary in Schöpper et al, 2022a). More general, S–R binding in nonspatial discrimination tasks is reliably observed, coming with medium to high effect sizes (e.g., Experiments 1 and 3 with d = 0.46 in Schöpper et al, 2022b; discrimination tasks with d = 2.97 in Experiment 1 and d = 2.77 in Experiment 2 in Schöpper et al, 2020). In Experiment 1, 32 students of the University of Trier participated for partial course credit and gave informed consent by a response field.…”

Responding, fast and slow: Visual detection and localization performance is unaffected by retrieval

“…Experiments 1 and 2 suggested that slow responses do not lead to retrieval in detection and localization performance. To gain more support for this, we looked at cumulative reaction time distributions based on reaction time percentiles (e.g., Schöpper & Frings, 2022 , 2023 ; Schöpper et al, 2022a , b ; Taylor & Ivanoff, 2005 ). As binding in detection performance can manifest in a main effect with a benefit of (nonspatial) feature repetition (see Schöpper & Frings, 2023 ; Schöpper et al, 2020 ), we not only looked at the interaction of color and location, but also at the calculated main effects of color and location.…”

“…Several ideas have been proposed why S-R binding effects are regularly absent in detection (and localization) performance. First, it has been argued that a discriminatory component is what leads to the observation of S-R binding effects (e.g., Schöpper et al, 2020 , 2022a , b )—if it is absent, binding effects are not observed. This fits well with different outcomes for detection and discrimination procedures in visual search (e.g., Krummenacher et al, 2009 ; Müller & Krummenacher, 2006 ; for a discussion, see Schöpper et al, 2020 ), highlighting the importance of a discrimination response for observing partial repetition costs in search displays (Zehetleitner et al, 2012 ).…”