Stimulus–response bindings in priming

Henson, Richard N.; Eckstein, D.; Waszak, Florian; Frings, Christian; Horner, Aidan J.

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.004

Cited by 228 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This might be a further indication of similarity between Pavlovian conditioning and distractor-response binding-or learning and binding processes in general (see e.g. Giesen & Rothermund, 2014;Henson et al, 2014;Moeller & Frings, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In addition, we systematically varied the degree of perceptual similarity between repeated irrelevant features. The theoretical motivation for systematically varying the degree of similarity between repeated irrelevant features stems from comparison of binding effects with learning (e.g., Colzato, Raffone, & Hommel, 2006;Giesen & Rothermund, 2014;Henson et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

Singh

Moeller

Frings

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binding theories assume that a stimulus and a response made to it are bound together, as in the case of the theory of event coding, in an event file (Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(05), 849-937, 2001). This binding occurs after even a single encounter with the stimulus and the response. Repeating any part of the event file will cause the entire file to be retrieved. However not only are relevant stimuli bound with responses but even irrelevant stimuli that co-occur with the target can be bound with the response, and repeating such a distractor will result in the event file being retrieved. Yet previous studies focused on retrieval effects due to repetition of the same distractor. In this experiment we analysed whether perceptually similar distractors still influence actions due to distractor-based retrieval of responses. Thirty-one participants responded to the shape of the stimulus while ignoring the luminance (5 different shades of grey). The similarity of the stimulus luminance between two consecutive trials influenced response times on response repetition trials. Response repetition effects were particularly facilitated with exact repetitions of the irrelevant feature luminance, and the strength of this effect diminished with increasing dissimilarity of luminance in a linear fashion. We conclude that response-retrieval effects due to distractor bindings follow the rules of generalization, as discussed in the conditioning literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

Singh

Moeller

Frings

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, repeating a stimulus that was earlier integrated in an action plan leads to response facilitation if the same response has to be repeated and, conversely, it leads to response impairment if a different response is required. Research on stimulus-response bindings in general has uncovered a wide variety of stimulus-response associations that are integrated automatically (Frings et al, 2007;Frings, Moeller, & Rothermund, 2013;Hommel, 1998Hommel, , 2004Hommel et al, 2004;Horner & Henson, 2009, 2011Mayr & Buchner, 2006;Logan, 1988Logan, , 1990Waszak, Hommel, & Allport, 2004, for a recent review on stimulus-response binding in general, see Henson, Eckstein, Waszak, Frings, & Horner, 2014). The fact that not only currently relevant information is associated to own responses, but also additional response-irrelevant features, indicates that action plans readily accommodate any kind of environmental contingency.…”

Section: Binding Responses and Concurrent Distractor Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?

Moeller

Pfister

Kunde

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term bindings between responses and events in the environment ensure efficient behavioral control. This notion holds true for two particular types of binding: bindings between responses and response-irrelevant distractor stimuli that are present at the time of responding, and also for bindings between responses and the effects they cause. Although both types of binding have been extensively studied in the past, little is known about their interrelation. In three experiments, we analyzed both types of binding processes in a distractorresponse binding design and in a response-effect binding design, which yielded two central findings: (1) Distractorresponse binding and response-effect binding effects were observed not only in their native, but also in the corresponding Bnon-native^design, and (2) a manipulation of retrieval delay affected both types of bindings in a similar way. We suggest that a general and unselective mechanism is responsible for integrating own responses with a large variety of stimuli.

show abstract

“…I discuss research findings related to behavioral "repetition priming^and neural "repetition suppression," putative behavioral and neural correlates of incremental learning mechanisms. While repetition priming and repetition suppression have been reviewed a number of times previously (e.g., Gotts, Chow, & Martin, 2012a;Grill-Spector et al, 2006;Henson, 2003;Henson et al, 2014;Schacter & Buckner, 1998;Wiggs & Martin, 1998), their joint relationship to broader incremental learning proposals has not been evaluated to date.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental learning of perceptual and conceptual representations and the puzzle of neural repetition suppression

Gotts

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incremental learning models of long-term perceptual and conceptual knowledge hold that neural representations are gradually acquired over many individual experiences via Hebbian-like activity-dependent synaptic plasticity across cortical connections of the brain. In such models, variation in task relevance of information, anatomic constraints, and the statistics of sensory inputs and motor outputs lead to qualitative alterations in the nature of representations that are acquired. Here, the proposal that behavioral repetition priming and neural repetition suppression effects are empirical markers of incremental learning in the cortex is discussed, and research results that both support and challenge this position are reviewed. Discussion is focused on a recent fMRI-adaptation study from our laboratory that shows decoupling of experience-dependent changes in neural tuning, priming, and repetition suppression, with representational changes that appear to work counter to the explicit task demands. Finally, critical experiments that may help to clarify and resolve current challenges are outlined.

show abstract

Stimulus–response bindings in priming

Cited by 228 publications

References 88 publications

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of S-R episodes

A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding?

Incremental learning of perceptual and conceptual representations and the puzzle of neural repetition suppression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About