Separating binding and retrieval of event files in older adults.

In the literature on human action control, it is assumed that features of stimuli (S) and responses (R) are integrated into internal representations (so-called event files) that are involved in the execution of an action. Experimentally, the impact of this integration on action control is typically analyzed via S-R binding effects. Recent theorizing in the BRAC framework (Frings et al., 2020) suggests to disentangle the processes of S-R binding proper from S-R retrieval as two independent components contributing to S-R binding effects. Since the literature on age effects on S-R binding effects is scarce and does not provide information on whether the existing findings about the two processes can be generalized to older age groups, this is the first study addressing the effects of older age separately on S-R binding proper vs. S-R retrieval. In two established variants of S-R binding tasks (cumulative n = 262), we contrasted binding (by using a saliency manipulation at the time of binding proper) versus retrieval processes (by manipulating the onset of the distractor at the time of retrieval), replicating previous results in younger (18-30 years) and also in older healthy controls (50-70 years). We therefore found no evidence for age effects on S-R binding proper or S-R retrieval. We thus conclude that the processes contributing to S-R binding effects are - at least in the age groups analyzed in this study - robust and age-independent. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: In human action control, binding proper and retrieval of features in stimulus-response episodes typically lead to so-called S-R binding effects. Against the background of recent theorizing, binding proper and retrieval should be studied independently. In this article, we ran a younger and an older age group and analyzed possible age-related differences in integration or retrieval. Both groups showed the expected pattern for binding and retrieval as expected from the literature.

Multisensory integration reduces landmark distortions for tactile but not visual targets.

Target localization is influenced by the presence of additionally presented nontargets, termed landmarks. In both the visual and tactile modality, these landmarks led to systematic distortions of target localizations often resulting in a shift toward the landmark. This shift has been attributed to averaging the spatial memory of both stimuli. Crucially, everyday experiences often rely on multiple modalities, and multisensory research suggests that inputs from different senses are optimally integrated, not averaged, for accurate perception, resulting in more reliable perception of cross-modal compared with uni-modal stimuli. As this could also lead to a reduced influence of the landmark, we wanted to test whether landmark distortions would be reduced when presented in a different modality or whether landmark distortions were unaffected by the modalities presented. In two experiments (each n = 30) tactile or visual targets were paired with tactile or visual landmarks. Experiment 1 showed that targets were less shifted toward landmarks from the different than the same modality, which was more pronounced for tactile than for visual targets. Experiment 2 aimed to replicate this pattern with increased visual uncertainty to rule out that smaller localization shifts of visual targets due to low uncertainty had led to the results. Still, landmark modality influenced localization shifts for tactile but not visual targets. The data pattern for tactile targets is not in line with memory averaging but seems to reflect the effects of multisensory integration, whereas visual targets were less prone to landmark distortions and do not appear to benefit from multisensory integration.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In the present study, we directly tested the predictions of two different accounts, namely, spatial memory averaging and multisensory integration, concerning the degree of landmark distortions of targets across modalities. We showed that landmark distortions were reduced across modalities compared to distortions within modalities, which is in line with multisensory integration. Crucially, this pattern was more pronounced for tactile than for visual targets.

Increased display complexity reveals effects of salience in action control.

In action-control research, typically, stimulus sparse displays are used. This might be one reason why previous theorizing focuses on the (top-down) demands of response selection (e.g., what key to press), while often ignoring (bottom-up) demands of stimulus selection (e.g., what stimulus to attend). However, complex perceptual situations may pose selection demands that make additional, response-unrelated feature dimensions relevant for response selection. The major stimulus characteristic affecting perceptual selection is salience. In research on visual attention, there is a debate about the conditions under which salience becomes effective. We related both debates in two experiments, in which we modulated display set size as well as salience in a stimulus-response binding task. In sum, the data of these experiments (pooled N = 138) demonstrated that salience furthered the integration of stimulus features in displays with many stimuli more than in sparse displays. Our results demonstrate the neglected impact of salience on action-control when going beyond the very simplistic displays common in action-control research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Predictability reduces event file retrieval.

There is growing consensus that stimulus-response bindings (event files) play a central role in human action control. Here, we investigated how the integration and the retrieval of event files are affected by the predictability of stimulus components of event files. We used the distractor-response binding paradigm, in which nominally task-irrelevant distractors are repeated or alternated from a prime to a probe display. The typical outcome of these kinds of tasks is that the effects of distractor repetition and response repetition interact: Performance is worse if the distractor repeats but the response does not, or vice versa. This partial-repetition effect was reduced when the distractor was highly predictable (Experiment 1). Separate manipulations of distractor predictability in the prime and probe trial revealed that this pattern was only replicated if the probe distractors were predictable (Experiment 2b, 3), but not if prime distractors were predictable (Experiment 2a). This suggests that stimulus predictability does not affect the integration of distractor information into event files, but the retrieval of these files when one or more of the integrated features are repeated. We take our findings to support theoretical claims that integration and retrieval of event files might differ concerning their sensitivity to top-down factors.

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

Nowadays there is consensus that stimulus and response features are partially represented in the same coding format furthering the binding of these features into event files. If some or all features comprised in an event file repeat later, the whole file can be retrieved thereby modulating ongoing performance (leading to so-called stimulus-response binding effects). Stimulus-response binding effects are usually investigated in sequential priming paradigms where it is assumed that binding occurs in the prime and retrieval in the probe. Importantly, binding and retrieval are not exclusive for targets but also apply to distractor stimuli. A previous study showed that distractor-binding effects were affected by perceptual grouping: Binding effects were significantly larger when stimuli were grouped compared to ungrouped stimuli. Recent theorizing suggests that binding and retrieval are two separate processes that can be individually modulated. Against this background, it is not possible to pinpoint the modulating influence of perceptual grouping on either process at this point in time. Therefore, we adapted the previous study design in two experiments to observe the effect of perceptual grouping on both processes in isolation. Results indicate that perceptual grouping did not impact binding but retrieval: Distractor-response retrieval was reduced when target and distractor were presented in separate objects. Our results thus support recent theorizing on the separation of binding and retrieval.

A mighty tool not only in perception: Figure-ground mechanisms control binding and retrieval alike.

Stimulus and response features are linked together into an event file when a response is made towards a stimulus. If some or all linked features repeat, the whole event file (including the previous response) is retrieved, thereby affecting current performance (as measured in so-called binding effects). Applying the figure-ground segmentation principle to such action control experiments, previous research showed that only stimulus features that have a figure-like character led to binding effects, while features in the background did not. Against the background of recent theorizing, integration and retrieval are discussed as separate processes that independently contribute to binding effects (BRAC framework). Thus, previous research did not specify whether figure-ground manipulations exert their modulating influence on integration and/or retrieval. We tested this in three experiments. Participants worked through a sequential distractor-response binding (DRB) task, allowing measurement of binding effects between responses and distractor (color) features. Importantly, we manipulated whether the distractor color was presented as a background feature or as a figure feature. In contrast to previous experiments, we applied this manipulation only to prime displays (Experiment 1), only to probe display (Experiment 2), or varied the figure-ground manipulation orthogonally for primes and probes (Experiment 3). Together the results of all three experiments suggest that figure-ground segmentation affects DRB effects on top of encoding specificity, and that especially the retrieval process is affected by this manipulation.

Temporal expectancy modulates stimulus-response integration.

We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event. If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. Yet the role of foreperiods has so far not been investigated in action control. Thus, we investigated the influence of foreperiod on the integration of action-perception features. Participants worked through a standard distractor-response binding paradigm where two consecutive responses are made towards target letters while distractor letters are present. Responses and/or distractors can repeat or change from first to second display, leading to partial repetition costs when only some features repeat or repetition benefits when all features repeat (the difference constituting distractor-response binding). To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we also introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. We observed that distractor-response binding increased with increasing foreperiod duration, and speculate that this was driven by an increase in motor readiness induced by temporal expectancy.