Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Denkinger, B., & Koutstaal, W. (2009). Perceive-decide-act, perceive-decide-act: How abstract is repetition-related decision learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 742–756. CrossRef
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. CrossRef
Fletcher, B. C., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1978). The changing pattern of perceptual analytic strategies and response selection with practice in a two-choice reaction time task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30(3), 417–427. CrossRef
Frings, C., Moeller, B., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 75(4), 700–709. CrossRef
Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). To be or not to be … included in an event file: Integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus–response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1209–1227. CrossRef
Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1367–1377. CrossRef
Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus–response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 376–384. CrossRef
Holmes, V. M., & Langford, J. (1976). Comprehension and recall of abstract and concrete sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 559–566. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. CrossRef
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11(4), 483–521. CrossRef
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(05), 849–937. CrossRef
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 757–779. CrossRef
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus–response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1457–1471. CrossRef
Kieras, D. (1978). Beyond pictures and words: Alternative information-processing models for imagery effects in verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 532–554. CrossRef
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. CrossRef
Mayr, B., & Buchner, A. (2006). Evidence for episodic retrieval of inadequate prime responses in auditory negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(4), 932–943.
Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2014). Long-term response–stimulus associations can influence distractor-response bindings. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 68–80. CrossRef
Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017). Overlearned responses hinder SR binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 1.
Neill, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(6), 1291–1305. CrossRef
Neill, W. T., & Valdes, L. A. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: Steady state or decay? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(3), 565–576. CrossRef
Nelson, D. L., & Schrieber, T. A. (1992). Word concreteness and word structure as independent determinants of recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 237–260. CrossRef
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. CrossRef
Paivio, A., Walsh, M., & Bons, T. (1994). Concreteness effects on memory: When and why? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1196–1204. CrossRef
Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1991). Effects of word abstractness in a connectionist model of deep dyslexia. Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 73–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rothermund, K., Wentura, D., & De Houwer, J. (2005). Retrieval of incidental stimulus–response associations as a source of negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 482–495. CrossRef
Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Besener, D. (2010). Contingency learning and unlearning in the blink of an eye: A resource dependent process. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 235–250. CrossRef
Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rotmermund, K. (2016). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus–response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108. CrossRef
Schwanenfluegel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 82–102. CrossRef
Singh, T., Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2016). Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor-based retrieval of SR episodes. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78(8), 2307–2312. CrossRef
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1625–1640.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weimer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 719–736. CrossRef
- Binding abstract concepts
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg