Another dimension! Using dimension weighting to observe integration and retrieval in localization performance.

According to action control theories, responding to a stimulus leads to the integration of response and stimulus features (e.g., color, shape, etc.) into event files. Upon feature repetition, the event file is retrieved, affecting performance. However, the resulting so-called binding effects are typically absent when participants localize targets in a sequence. Here, only a location change benefit emerges, known as inhibition of return (IOR), unmodulated by feature repetitions and changes. This has often been replicated in attentional orienting research. However, in these experimental designs only the individual stimulus feature is systematically varied to repeat or change. Based on the dimension weighting account from visual search, we hypothesized that the lack of binding effects in localization performance is due to a lack of systematically varying feature dimensions. In three experiments, participants localized targets in the left or right hemifield. The target appeared at multiple possible locations with gray distractors (Experiment 1), at multiple possible locations without distractors (Experiment 2), and at two possible locations without distractors (Experiment 3). Crucially, the nonspatial identity of the target repeated its dimension with or without the individual feature, or it changed its dimension. Whereas a binding effect between response and feature was absent, we found a binding pattern between response and feature dimension. IOR was always present. The results fit well with theories of different research strands-action control, attentional orienting, and visual search-suggesting that these gain impact by incorporating each other's ideas, leading to an all-encompassing understanding of selection and action. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Responding, fast and slow: Visual detection and localization performance is unaffected by retrieval.

According to action control theories, responding to a stimulus leads to the binding of the response and stimulus features into an event file. Repeating any component of the latter retrieves previous information, affecting ongoing performance. Based on years of attentional orienting research, recent boundaries of such binding theories have been proposed as binding effects are fully absent in visual detection (e.g., Schöpper et al., 2020, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(4), 2085-2097) and localization (e.g., Schöpper & Frings, 2022; Visual Cognition, 30(10), 641-658) performance. While this can be attributed to specific task demands, the possibility remains that retrieval of previous event files is hampered in such tasks due to overall fast responding. In the current study we instructed participants to signal the detection (Experiment 1) and location (Experiment 2) of dots orthogonally repeating or changing their nonspatial identity and location. Crucially, the dots were either hard or easy to perceive. As expected, making targets hard to perceive drastically slowed down detection and localization response speed. Importantly, binding effects were absent irrespective of perceptibility. In contrast, discriminating the nonspatial identity of targets (Experiment 3) showed strong binding effects. These results highlight the impact of task-dependence for binding approaches in action control.

Turning the Light Switch on Binding: Prefrontal Activity for Binding and Retrieval in Action Control.

According to action control theories, responding to a stimulus leads to the binding of response and stimulus features into a common representation, that is, an event file. Repeating any component of an event file retrieves all previously bound information, leading to performance costs for partial repetitions measured in so-called binding effects. Although otherwise robust and stable, binding effects are typically completely absent in "localization tasks," in which participants localize targets with spatially compatible responses. Yet, it is possible to observe binding effects in such when location features have to be translated into response features. We hypothesized that this modulation of binding effects is reflected in task involvement of the dorsolateral pFC (DLPFC). Participants localized targets with either direct (i.e., spatially compatible key) or translated (i.e., diagonally opposite to the spatially compatible key) responses. We measured DLPFC activity with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. On the behavioral level, we observed binding effects in the translated response condition, but not in the direct response condition. Importantly, prefrontal activity was also higher in the translated mapping condition. In addition, we found some evidence for the strength of the difference in binding effects in behavioral data being correlated with the corresponding effects in prefrontal activity. This suggests that activity in the DLPFC reflects the amount of executive control needed for translating location features into responses. More generally, binding effects seem to emerge only when the task at hand involves DLPFC recruitment.

Bound to a spider without its web: Task-type modulates the retrieval of affective information in subsequent responses.

Action control theories assume that upon responding to a stimulus response and stimulus features are integrated into a short episodic memory trace; repeating any component spurs on retrieval, affecting subsequent performance. The resulting so-called "binding effects" are reliably observed in discrimination tasks. In contrast, in localization performance, these effects are absent and only inhibition of return (IOR) emerges - a location change benefit. Affective information has been found to modulate binding effects; yet a modulation of IOR has led to mixed results, with many finding no influence at all. In the current study, participants discriminated letters (Experiment 1) or localized dots (Experiment 2) on a touchpad in prime-probe sequences. During the prime display two images - one with fruits and one with a spider - appeared, one of which spatially congruent with the to-be-touched area. In the discrimination task, previously touching a spider compared to a fruit slowed down response repetitions. In contrast, the localization task only showed IOR. This suggests that task-irrelevant valence is integrated with the response and affects subsequent responses due to retrieval. However, this is not ubiquitous but depends on task type. The results shed further light on the impact of affective information on actions.

Attentional Biases Toward Spiders Do Not Modulate Retrieval.

When responding to stimuli, response and stimulus' features are thought to be integrated into a short episodic memory trace, an event file. Repeating any of its components causes retrieval of the whole event file leading to benefits for full repetitions and changes but interference for partial repetitions. These binding effects are especially pronounced if attention is allocated to certain features. We used attentional biases caused by spider stimuli, aiming to modulate the impact of attention on retrieval. Participants discriminated the orientation of bars repeating or changing their location in prime-probe sequences. Crucially, shortly before probe target onset, an image of a spider and that of a cub appeared at one position each - one of which was spatially congruent with the following probe target. Participants were faster when responding to targets spatially congruent with a preceding spider, suggesting an attentional bias toward aversive information. Yet, neither overall binding effects differed between content of preceding spatially congruent images nor did this effect emerge when taking individual fear of spiders into account. We conclude that attentional biases toward spiders modulate overall behavior, but that this has no impact on retrieval.

Same, but different: Binding effects in auditory, but not visual detection performance.

Responding to a stimulus leads to the integration of response and stimulus' features into an event file. Upon repetition of any of its features, the previous event file is retrieved, thereby affecting ongoing performance. Such integration-retrieval explanations exist for a number of sequential tasks (that measure these processes as 'binding effects') and are thought to underlie all actions. However, based on attentional orienting literature, Schöpper, Hilchey, et al. (2020) could show that binding effects are absent when participants detect visual targets in a sequence: In visual detection performance, there is simply a benefit for target location changes (inhibition of return). In contrast, Mondor and Leboe (2008) had participants detect auditory targets in a sequence, and found a benefit for frequency repetition - presumably reflecting a binding effect in auditory detection performance. In the current study, we conducted two experiments, that only differed in the modality of the target: Participants signaled the detection of a sound (N = 40) or of a visual target (N = 40). Whereas visual detection performance showed a pattern incongruent with binding assumptions, auditory detection performance revealed a non-spatial feature repetition benefit, suggesting that frequency was bound to the response. Cumulative reaction time distributions indicated that the absence of a binding effect in visual detection performance was not caused by overall faster responding. The current results show a clear limitation to binding accounts in action control: Binding effects are not only limited by task demands, but can entirely depend on target modality.

Investigating attentional control sets: Evidence for the compilation of multi-feature control sets.

Top-down control over stimulus-driven attentional capture, as postulated by the contingent capture hypothesis, has been a topic of lively scientific debate for a number of years now. According to the latter hypothesis, a stimulus has to match the feature of a top-down established control set in order to be selected automatically. Today, research on the topic of contingent capture has focused mostly on the manipulation of only a single feature separating the target from the distractors (the selection feature). The research presented here examined the compilation of top-down attentional control sets having multiple selection features. We report three experiments in which the feature overlap between the distractor and the top-down sets was manipulated on different perceptual features (e.g., colour, orientation and location). Distractors could match three, two or one of the features of the top-down sets. In line with our hypotheses, the strength of the distractor interference effects decreased linearly as the feature overlap between the distractor and the participants' top-down sets decreased. These results therefore suggest a decline in the efficiency with which distractors involuntarily capture attention as the target-similarity decreases. The data support the idea of multi-feature attentional control sets and are discussed in light of prominent contemporary theories of visual attention.

Saccadic landing positions reveal that eye movements are affected by distractor-based retrieval.

Binding theories assume that stimulus and response features are integrated into short-lasting episodes and that upon repetition of any feature the whole episode is retrieved, thereby affecting performance. Such binding theories are nowadays the standard explanation for a wide range of action control tasks and aim to explain all simple actions, without making assumptions of effector specificity. Yet, it is unclear if eye movements are affected by integration and retrieval in the same way as manual responses. We asked participants to discriminate letters framed by irrelevant shapes. In Experiment 1, participants gave their responses with eye movements. Saccade landing positions showed a spatial error pattern consistent with predictions of binding theories. Saccadic latencies were not affected. In Experiment 2 with an increased interval between prime and probe, the error pattern diminished, again congruent with predictions of binding theories presuming quickly decaying retrieval effects. Experiment 3 used the same task as in Experiment 1, but participants executed their responses with manual key presses; again, we found a binding pattern in response accuracy. We conclude that eye movements and manual responses are affected by the same integration and retrieval processes, supporting the tacit assumption of binding theories to apply to any effector.

The official soundtrack to "Five shades of grey": Generalization in multimodal distractor-based retrieval.

When responding to two events in a sequence, the repetition or change of stimuli and the accompanying response can benefit or interfere with response execution: Full repetition leads to benefits in performance while partial repetition leads to costs. Additionally, even distractor stimuli can be integrated with a response, and can, upon repetition, lead to benefits or interference. Recently it has been suggested that not only identical, but also perceptually similar distractors retrieve a previous response (Singh et al., Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(8), 2307-2312, 2016): Participants discriminated four visual shapes appearing in five different shades of grey, the latter being irrelevant for task execution. Exact distractor repetitions yielded the strongest distractor-based retrieval effect, which decreased with increasing dissimilarity between shades of grey. In the current study, we expand these findings by conceptually replicating Singh et al. (2016) using multimodal stimuli. In Experiment 1 (N=31), participants discriminated four visual targets accompanied by five auditory distractors. In Experiment 2 (N=32), participants discriminated four auditory targets accompanied by five visual distractors. We replicated the generalization of distractor-based retrieval - that is, the distractor-based retrieval effect decreased with increasing distractor-dissimilarity. These results not only show that generalization in distractor-based retrieval occurs in multimodal feature processing, but also that these processes can occur for distractors perceived in a different modality to that of the target.

Detection versus discrimination: The limits of binding accounts in action control.

Actions can be investigated by using sequential priming tasks, in which participants respond to prime and probe targets (sometimes accompanied by distractors). Facilitation and interference from prime to probe are measured by repeating, changing, or partially repeating features or responses between prime and probe. According to the action control literature, feature-feature or feature-response bindings are universal and apply for all actions. The attentional orienting literature, however, suggests that if the task is to detect stimuli, such binding effects may be absent. In two experiments, we compared performance in a discrimination task and a detection task with the exact same perceptual setup of prime-probe sequences. For the discrimination task, we replicated the typical feature-response binding pattern. Crucially, we did not observe any binding effects for the detection task, which can be explained by task-specific processes or fast response execution. These results reveal an important boundary of current binding models in action control.