Instructed speed and accuracy affect binding.

In the past few decades, binding and retrieval mechanisms have gained increased interest in research on human action control. Recent studies show that these mechanisms also play a role in the control of multiple independent actions. Here, two or more successively executed responses seem to be bound to each other so that repeating one of them can retrieve the other, affecting performance in this second response and resulting in so-called response-response binding effects. Binding effects are typically found in the response time data and, somewhat less reliably, also in the error rates. Whether binding effects show in the response times, the error rates, or both, is likely influenced by the current speed-accuracy settings of the participants, with binding effects more likely showing in error rates under a speed setting, while more likely showing in RTs under an accuracy setting. Alternatively, different speed-accuracy settings might also entail changes in executive control, affecting the size of observed binding effects. In this study, we tested these assumptions by comparing binding effects under different speed-accuracy settings that were induced via instructions focusing on speed, accuracy, or both (ambivalent). Binding effects were observed in response times independent of instructions, while in error rates, they only showed under speed or ambivalent instructions. These findings indicate that binding effects can be affected by instructions regarding speed and accuracy.

It's not distance but similarity of distance: changing stimulus relations affect the control of action sequences.

Interacting with our environment happens on different levels of complexity: While there are individual and simple actions like an isolated button press, most actions are more complex and involve sequences of simpler actions. The degree to which multiple simple actions are represented as one action sequence can be measured via so-called response-response binding effects. When two or more responses are executed consecutively, they are integrated into one representation so that repetition of one response can start retrieval of the other. Executing such an action sequence typically involves responding to multiple objects or stimuli. Here, we investigated whether the spatial relation of these stimuli affects action sequence execution. To that end, we varied the distance between stimuli in a response-response binding task. Stimulus distance might affect response-response binding effects in one of two ways: It might directly affect the representation of the response sequence, making integration and retrieval between responses more likely if the responses relate to close stimuli. Alternatively, the similarity of stimulus distribution during integration and retrieval might be decisive, leading to larger binding effects if stimulus distance is identical during integration and retrieval. We found stronger binding effects with constant than with changing stimulus distance, indicating that action integration and retrieval can easily affect performance also if responses refer to separated objects. However, this effect on performance is diminished by changing spatial distribution of stimuli at the times of integration and retrieval.

Perception and action as viewed from the Theory of Event Coding: a multi-lab replication and effect size estimation of common experimental designs.

The Theory of Event Coding (TEC) has influenced research on action and perception across the past two decades. It integrates several seminal empirical phenomena and it has continued to stimulate novel experimental approaches on the representational foundations of action control and perceptual experience. Yet, many of the most notable results surrounding TEC originate from an era of psychological research that relied on rather small sample sizes as judged by today's standards. This state hampers future research aiming to build on previous phenomena. We, therefore, provide a multi-lab re-assessment of the following six classical observations: response-effect compatibility, action-induced blindness, response-effect learning, stimulus-response binding, code occupation, and short-term response-effect binding. Our major goal is to provide precise estimates of corresponding effect sizes to facilitate future scientific endeavors. These effect sizes turned out to be considerably smaller than in the original reports, thus allowing for informed decisions on how to address each phenomenon in future work. Of note, the most relevant results of the original observations were consistently obtained in the present experiments as well.

Watching the Brain as It (Un)Binds: Beta Synchronization Relates to Distractor-Response Binding.

Human action control relies on event files, that is, short-term stimulus-response bindings that result from the integration of perception and action. The present EEG study examined oscillatory brain activities related to the integration and disintegration of event files in the distractor-response binding (DRB) task, which relies on a sequential prime-probe structure with orthogonal variation of distractor and response relations between prime and probe. Behavioral results indicated a DRB effect in RTs, which was moderated by the duration of the response-stimulus interval (RSI) between prime response and probe stimulus onset. Indeed, a DRB effect was observed for a short RSI of 500 msec but not for a longer RSI of 2000 msec, indicating disintegration of event files over time. EEG results revealed a positive correlation between individual DRB in the RSI-2000 condition and postmovement beta synchronization after both prime and probe responses. Beamformer analysis localized this correlation effect to the middle occipital gyrus, which also showed highest coherency with precentral and inferior parietal brain regions. Together, these findings suggest that postmovement beta synchronization is a marker of event file disintegration, with the left middle occipital gyrus being a hub region for stimulus-response bindings in the visual DRB task.

Remote binding counts: measuring distractor-response binding effects online.

Bindings between stimulus- and response features have received increasing attention in recent research and theorizing regarding human action control. Apparently, very simple mechanisms that lead to feature binding and retrieval of recently integrated features have an important influence on planning and execution of actions. Regarding the importance of these mechanisms, it seems to be reasonable to test whether they can be measured outside of a formal laboratory situation. Here we ran an online version of the distractor-response binding task reaching participants via crowdsourcing. Distractor-response binding effects were significant in this setup showing that basic mechanisms of feature binding and retrieval indeed influence human action in less formal situations. Besides arguing for the generality and robustness of the effect practical implications are discussed.

Binding abstract concepts.

Binding theories assume that a stimulus and the response made to it are bound together in an event file (Hommel et al., Behav Brain Sci 24(05):849-937, 2001). Such bindings can occur even after single encounters. If the stimulus or parts of its features are repeated within the time frame in which the event file is still intact, the previously integrated response is retrieved. Stimulus-response binding can exist at a perceptual, conceptual or a response selection level (Henson et al., Trends Cogn Sci 18(7):376-384, 2014). The current experiments test whether the observed binding of concepts with responses can be extended from concrete to abstract concepts (detailedness) and whether abstract concepts can retrieve the previous response, in the absence of perceptual repetition. In the present experiment participants responded to a target feature (colour) while the detailedness of the stimulus was irrelevant to the task. The results showed a significant interaction of response relation and detailedness relation, even in the absence of perceptual repetition. This interaction is interpreted as evidence for response-retrieval due to abstract concept repetition. Thus, our data suggest a broader impact of binding mechanism on performance as even abstract concepts can be integrated into event-files and later modulate behaviour.

Auditory distractor processing in sequential selection tasks.

In this review, we analyze the cognitive processes contributing to selection in audition. In particular, we focus on the processing of auditory distractors in sequential selection paradigms in which target stimuli are accompanied by distractors. We review the evidence from two established tasks, namely the auditory negative priming and the auditory distractor-response binding task, and discuss the cognitive mechanisms contributing to the results typically observed in these tasks. In fact, several processes have been suggested as to explain how distractors are processed and handled in audition; that is, auditory distractors can be inhibited, encoded with a do-not-respond-tag, integrated into a stimulus-response episode containing the response to the target, or upheld in working memory and matched/mismatched with the following distractor. In addition, variables possibly modulating these cognitive processes are discussed. Finally, auditory distractor processing is compared with distractor processing in vision.

Separated hands further response-response binding effects.

Action control is hierarchically organized. Multiple consecutive responses can be integrated into an event representation of higher order and can retrieve each other upon repetition, resulting in so-called response-response binding effects. Previous research indicates that the spatial separation of responses can affect how easily they can be cognitively separated. In this study, we introduced a barrier between the responding hands to investigate whether the spatial separation of two responses also influences response-response binding effects. In line with previous research on stimulus-response binding, we expected an increased separability of responses to result in stronger response-response binding effects when responding hands were separated by a barrier. We indeed found stronger response-response binding effects with separated hands. Results indicate that a more distinct representation of individual actions through increased separability might benefit the control of hierarchical actions.

What is left after an error? Towards a comprehensive account of goal-based binding and retrieval.

The cognitive system readily detects and corrects erroneous actions by establishing episodic bindings between representations of the acted upon stimuli and the intended correct response. If these stimuli are encountered again, they trigger the retrieval of the correct response. Thus, binding and retrieval efficiently pave the way for future success. The current study set out to define the role of the erroneous response itself and explicit feedback for the error during these processes of goal-based binding and retrieval. Two experiments showed robust and similar binding and retrieval effects with and without feedback and pointed towards sustained activation of the unbound, erroneous response. The third experiment confirmed that the erroneous response is more readily available than a neutral alternative. Together, the results demonstrate that episodic binding biases future actions toward success, guided primarily through internal feedback processes, while the erroneous response still leaves detectable traces in human action control.

The relation between learning and stimulus-response binding.

Perception and action rely on integrating or binding different features of stimuli and responses. Such bindings are short-lived, but they can be retrieved for a limited amount of time if any of their features is reactivated. This is particularly true for stimulus-response bindings, allowing for flexible recycling of previous action plans. A relation to learning of stimulus-response associations suggests itself, and previous accounts have proposed binding as an initial step of forging associations in long-term memory. The evidence for this claim is surprisingly mixed, however. Here we propose a framework that explains previous failures to detect meaningful relations of binding and learning by highlighting the joint contribution of three variables: (a) decay, (b) the number of repetitions, and (c) the time elapsing between repetitions. Accounting for the interplay of these variables provides a promising blueprint for innovative experimental designs that bridge the gap between immediate bindings on the one hand and lasting associations in memory on the other hand. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

All together now: Simultaneous feature integration and feature retrieval in action control.

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.

Ideomotor learning: Time to generalize a longstanding principle.

The ideomotor principle holds that anticipating the sensory consequences of a movement triggers an associated motor response. Even though this framework dates back to the 19th century, it continues to lie at the heart of many contemporary approaches to human action control. Here we specifically focus on the ideomotor learning mechanism that has to precede action initiation via effect anticipation. Traditional approaches to this learning mechanism focused on establishing novel action-effect (or response-effect) associations. Here we apply the theoretical concept of common coding for action and perception to argue that the same learning principle should result in response-response and stimulus-stimulus associations just as well. Generalizing ideomotor learning in such a way results in a powerful and general framework of ideomotor action control, and it allows for integrating the two seemingly separate fields of ideomotor approaches and hierarchical learning.

Binding between Responses is not Modulated by Grouping of Response Effects.

Several action control theories postulate that individual responses to stimuli are represented by event files that include temporal bindings between stimulus, response, and effect features. Which stimulus features are bound into an event file can be influenced by stimulus grouping. Here, we investigate whether effect grouping moderates response feature binding. For this purpose, we used an adapted response-response binding paradigm introducing a visual effect after each response. These effects could either appear spatially grouped, i.e., close to each other, or non-grouped, thus far from each other. If effect grouping influences response representation, response-response binding effects should be larger for responses producing grouped effects than for responses producing non-grouped effects. In two experiments, we found no indication for a modulation of response-response binding by effect grouping. The role of effect grouping for binding and retrieval processes seems to differ from past evidence regarding stimulus grouping.

Stimulus decay functions in action control.

When facing particular combinations of stimuli and responses, people create temporary event-files integrating the corresponding stimulus and response features. Subsequent repetition of one or more of these features retrieves the entire event-file, which impairs performance if not all features are repeated (partial-repetition costs). In the literature, different decay functions have been reported presumably dependent on the type of feature that is repeated (e.g. target vs. distractor features). Here, we use a variant of the S1R1-S2R2 and distractor-response binding task and analyze for the first time target-based and distractor-based event-file decay functions within the same task and sample. While we found evidence for decay functions and also stronger retrieval due to target than distractor repetitions, slopes of the decay functions were comparable suggesting that the decay process itself is equal irrespective of the type of stimulus feature that is repeated. Our study thereby confirms overarching approaches that summarize paradigm specific findings with the same set of core processes.

Binding and Retrieval of Response Durations: Subtle Evidence for Episodic Processing of Continuous Movement Features.

Re-encountering a stimulus retrieves nominally relevant, categorical response features related to previous action decisions in response to this stimulus. Whether binding and retrieval extend to nominally irrelevant, metric features relating to an actual body movement is unknown, however. In two experiments, we thus tested whether repeating target or distractor stimuli across trials retrieves the irrelevant duration of spatial responses to these stimuli. We found subtle indication of such retrieval by task-relevant target stimuli, suggesting that binding and retrieval also operate on metric features of a motor response. In contrast, there was no sign of binding and retrieval of metric features for distractor stimuli. We discuss these observations regarding the representation of action episodes during action-related decision making and during actual movement initiation and control.

The human cognitive system corrects traces of error commission on the fly.

Human perception and action rely on a fundamental binding mechanism that forges integrated event representations from distributed features. Encountering any one of these features later on can retrieve the whole event, thus expediting cognitive processing. The traditional view on binding confines it to successful action episodes, holding that the human cognitive system does not leverage errors for optimizing corresponding event representations. Here we use sequential analyses of erroneous action episodes to explore whether binding promotes future successful behavior even when actions go awry. Results indicate that the processes leading to binding integrate different aspects of the action episode in a highly efficient and flexible manner to privilege future correct actions and prepare the ground for error-based learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Remember the touch: tactile distractors retrieve previous responses to targets.

In selection tasks where target stimuli are accompanied by distractors, responses to target stimuli, target stimuli and the distractor stimuli can be encoded together as one episode in memory. Subsequent repetition of any aspect of such an episode can lead to the retrieval of the whole episode including the response. Thus, repeating a distractor can retrieve responses given to previous targets; this mechanism was labeled distractor-response binding and has been evidenced in vision and audition. Yet, previous research suggests possibly different distractor processing in the tactile as compared to the visual modality. In the present study, we therefore used a selection task in which participants always responded to one tactile stimulus while ignoring another. Evidence for the integration of tactile distractors with target responses was found in response times and errors. Our results indicate that binding of responses to distractors is a cognitive process that is independent of the stimulus' modality.

Response-response bindings do not decay for 6 seconds after integration: A case for bindings' relevance in hierarchical action control.

Executing a response results in bindings between features of present stimuli and features of the response (Hommel et al., 2001). Repetition of any of these features can then retrieve other integrated features, thus affecting following action (binding effects). The important role of feature bindings in action control is widely recognized in the literature by now (e.g., Frings et al., 2020; Henson et al., 2014). Recently, we found that bindings can also exist between individually planned and executed responses (Moeller & Frings, 2019b), which suggests that binding processes might play a role in hierarchical action representation (see Lashley, 1951). Yet, more specific information is necessary regarding the characteristics of response-response bindings to be able to integrate binding research with research on hierarchical action representation. Here, we analyzed durations of bindings between individual responses to decide whether response-response bindings hold for sufficiently long durations to support binding of actions also on a higher level in a hierarchy. We found evidence for response-response bindings lasting for relatively long times and no measurable decrease of the magnitudes for the binding effects over 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000 ms after response integration. The present findings support the suggestion that binding mechanisms can play a role in relating low-level microoperations to high-level macroprocedures in human action control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Illuminating the prefrontal neural correlates of action sequence disassembling in response-response binding.

Execution of two independent actions in quick succession results in transient binding of these two actions. Subsequent repetition of any of these actions automatically retrieves the other. This process is probably fundamental for developing complex action sequences. However, rigid bindings between two actions are not always adaptive. Sometimes, it is necessary to repeat only one of the two previously executed actions. In such situations, stored action sequences must be disassembled, for the sake of flexibility. Exact mechanisms that allow for such an active unbinding of actions remain largely unknown, but it stands to reason, that some form of prefrontal executive control is necessary. Building on prior neuronal research that explored other forms of binding (e.g. between distractors and responses and abstract representations and responses), we explored middle and superior frontal correlates of -response binding in a sequential classification task with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. We found that anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity varied as a function of response-repetition condition. Activity in the right anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex correlated with changes in reaction times due to response-response binding. Our results indicate that the right anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex dismantles bindings between consecutive actions, whenever such bindings interfere with current action goals.

Goal-Based Binding of Irrelevant Stimulus Features for Action Slips.

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.