Abstract

When humans perform a task, it has been shown that elements of this task, like stimulus (e.g., target and distractor) and response, are bound together into a common episodic representation called stimulus–response episode (or event file). Recently, the context, a completely task-irrelevant stimulus, was found to be integrated into an episode as well. However, instead of being bound directly with the response in a binary fashion, the context modulates the binary binding between the distractor and response. This finding raises the questions of whether the context can also enter into a binary binding with the response, and if so, what determines the way of its integration. In order to resolve these questions, saliency of the context was manipulated in three experiments by changing the loudness (Experiment 1) and emotional valence (Experiment 2A and 2B) of the context. All experiments implemented the four-alternative auditory negative priming paradigm introduced by Mayr and Buchner (2006, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32[4], 932–943). Results showed that the integration of context changed as a function of its saliency level. Specifically, the context of low saliency was not bound at all, the context of moderate saliency modulated the binary binding between the distractor and response, whereas the context of high saliency entered into a binary binding with the response. The current results extend a previous finding by Hommel (2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8[11], 494–500) that there is a saliency threshold which determines whether a stimulus is bound or not, by suggesting that a second threshold determines the specific structure (i.e., binary vs. configural) of the resulting binding.

Highlights

  • While we perceive a given stimulus as a unit, features of the stimulus are coded in a distributed fashion in the brain (e.g., Seymour et al, 2009; Stecker et al, 2005)

  • The results showed that the saliency of the context is a crucial determinant in stimulus–response binding

  • The results suggest that the context of low saliency was not integrated at all, and that the context of moderate saliency was involved in a configural binding

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While we perceive a given stimulus as a unit, features of the stimulus (e.g., color and shape of an object or pitch and loudness of a sound) are coded in a distributed fashion in the brain (e.g., Seymour et al, 2009; Stecker et al, 2005). The prime response was always different from the correct probe response This implies that retrieving the prime response in ignored repetition trials should impair probe responding, thereby leading to the negative priming effect (for a similar explanation, see Rothermund et al, 2005). The increased probability of committing prime response errors induced by the repetition of the prime stimulus has been coined as the prime-response retrieval effect, which is an unambiguous indicator of stimulus–response binding (Frings et al, 2015; Mayr et al, 2018). We adopted the negative priming paradigm and the analysis of the prime-response retrieval effect as a tool to investigate the mechanisms of stimulus–response binding with respect to the role of context in the integration of stimulus–response episodes

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call