Abstract
. Binding between representations of stimuli and actions and later retrieval of these compounds provide efficient shortcuts in action control. Recent observations indicate that these mechanisms are not only effective when action episodes go as planned, but they also seem to be at play when actions go awry. Moreover, the human cognitive system even corrects traces of error commission on the fly because it binds the intended but not actually executed response to concurrent task-relevant stimuli, thus enabling retrieval of a correct, but not actually executed response when encountering the stimulus again. However, a plausible alternative interpretation of this finding is that error commission triggers selective strengthening of the instructed stimulus–response mapping instead, thus promoting its efficient application in the future. The experiment presented here makes an unequivocal case for episodic binding and retrieval in erroneous action episodes by showing binding between task-irrelevant stimuli and correct responses.
Highlights
Human action control relies on binding mechanisms that integrate representations of stimuli, responses, and effects of an action episode (e.g., Frings et al, 2020; Hommel, 2004; Moeller et al, 2019)
The two-way interaction of the sequence of irrelevant stimuli and correct responses was significant, F(1, 44) = 21.07, p < .001, ηp2 = .32, indicating typical binding and retrieval effects as repetitions of the correct response showed a nonsignificant trend to be faster with repetitions than changes of irrelevant stimuli (M = 3.60 ms, SD = 12.30 ms), t(44) = 1.96, p = .056, dz = 0.29, while changes of the correct response were significantly slower for repetitions rather than changes of irrelevant stimuli (M = À5.68 ms, SD = 7.91 ms), t(44) = À4.81, p < .001, dz = À0.72
Participants performed a speeded choice reaction task, and we investigated whether sequential analyses of performance data would support the notion that goal-based binding for action slips encompasses task-irrelevant stimuli
Summary
Human action control relies on binding mechanisms that integrate representations of stimuli, responses, and effects of an action episode (e.g., Frings et al, 2020; Hommel, 2004; Moeller et al, 2019). Such strategies might be expected to boost performance in light of accumulating evidence for a consistent impact even of merely instructed mapping rules (e.g., Braem et al, 2019; Cohen-Kdoshay & Meiran, 2009; Kunde et al, 2003; Meiran et al, 2015; Pfeuffer et al, 2017; Wenke et al, 2007), which is possibly mediated by the formation of efficient action triggers (Kiesel et al, 2007) or implementation intentions (“if Srel, Rcor”; Gollwitzer, 1999) This account would assume that previous evidence for goal-based binding mirrors covert strengthening of a mapping rule rather than actual binding (for a related discussion in the literature on prospective memory, see Streeper & Bugg, 2021). There should not be an existing representation of a rule that specifies that drivers should indicate by operating the left lever whenever they see red on the road ahead
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.
