Abstract
Accounts of human action control assume integration of stimulus and response features at response execution and, upon repetition of some of those features, retrieval of other previously integrated features. Even though both processes contribute sequentially to observed binding effects in studies using a sequential prime-probe design, integration and retrieval processes theoretically affect human action simultaneously. That is, every action that we execute leads to bindings between features of stimuli and responses, while at the same time these features also trigger retrieval of other previously integrated features. Nevertheless, the paradigms used to measure binding effects in action control can only testify for integration of stimulus and response features at the first (R1, n-1, or prime) and retrieval of the past event via feature repetition at the second (R2, n, or probe) response. Here we combined two paradigms used in the action control literature to show that integration and retrieval do indeed function simultaneously. We found both significant stimulus-response and significant response-response binding effects, indicating that integration of responses must have occurred at the same time as response retrieval due to feature repetition and vice versa.
Highlights
Human action control seems to function effortlessly, but research in past decades shows that various more or less complex processes contribute to any action at a given moment in time (Dignath et al, 2019; Frings et al, 2015; Henson et al, 2014; Hommel, 1998; Kiesel et al, 2010; Kunde, 2001; Mayr & Buchner, 2006; Tenpenny, 1995)
response time (RT) that were more than 1.5 interquartile ranges above the third quartile of the RT distribution of the participant (Tukey, 1977) and RTs that were shorter than 200 ms were excluded from the RT analysis
Note that we found a larger response-response binding effect if stimulus-response binding was measured during the prime than if it was measured during the probe
Summary
Human action control seems to function effortlessly, but research in past decades shows that various more or less complex processes contribute to any action at a given moment in time (Dignath et al, 2019; Frings et al, 2015; Henson et al, 2014; Hommel, 1998; Kiesel et al, 2010; Kunde, 2001; Mayr & Buchner, 2006; Tenpenny, 1995). Based on the ideomotor principle and earlier binding theories (Hommel et al, 2001; Logan, 1988; Schmidt et al, 2016; Shin et al, 2010), the Binding and Retrieval in Action Control framework explicitly separates two core processes that contribute to many classic effects in the action control literature: feature integration and retrieval due to feature repetition (Frings et al, 2020). If the retrieved response matches the currently required response, retrieval facilitates responding; if a different response is required at stimulus repetition, responding is impaired. Such a result pattern indicates binding effects; in this example between stimulus and response
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
