The role of location in the organization of bindings within short-term episodic traces.

Abstract

Binding theories postulate short-term episodic traces within which stimulus and response features are integrated. These episodic traces can influence actions by facilitating or interfering with responding. Although the existence of such short-term episodic traces has been well documented, the role of location and the organization of bindings within the episodic traces is still not quite clear. While some theories suggest a key role for location, others do not. Similarly, some theories and empirical findings suggest the existence of object representations within episodic traces, while other theories suggest that bindings are purely binary, that is, consisting of only two features, and that no hierarchical bindings or object representations exist. The aim of the present study was to take a closer look at how bindings are organized within episodic traces: more specifically, the role of location in the organization of bindings was examined. Bindings were tested under two conditions; with varying spatial location of the stimuli (Experiment 1), and with a constant location of the stimuli (Experiment 2). The results suggest that when location varies, bindings are organized in an object-filelike structure within episodic traces, and when location is constant, bindings are binary in nature.

What Belongs Together Retrieves Together – The Role of Perceptual Grouping in Stimulus-Response Binding and Retrieval

“…Due to encoding specificity, location changes would have weakened the S-R binding effects even further. Even worse, location seems to be rather special for S-R binding processes and location changes (especially between prime and probe) induce different forms of binding ( Singh & Frings, 2020 ).…”

Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC)

“…There is evidence that can be interpreted as 'bottom-up control' of binding and retrieval; that is, the sensitivity of integration and/or retrieval to stimulus contingencies [54], affective states [55][56][57], and perceptual configurations (as a result of Gestalt mechanisms [45,58]) might indicate control of binding and retrieval processes by variables not originating in the observer. In addition, location repetitions versus changes of stimuli to which one responds actually influence whether features and responses are bound in a more binary fashion (when location changes) or whether the stimulus features are integrated into a single object and this feature compound is bound to the response [59]. Thus, in BRAC both top-down control and bottom-up control are assumed to exert their independent influences on binding and retrieval.…”

Towards a systematization of brain oscillatory activity in actions

“…contingencies [32][33][34][35][36] were used to manipulate binding versus retrieval separately. In addition, perceptual grouping has been successfully used to manipulate binding versus retrieval 37,38 . Furthermore, context manipulations that were applied separately to binding versus retrieval aspects again suggest that these processes should be treated as independent process [39][40][41] .…”