Top

Gepubliceerd in:

24-04-2019 | Original Article

David and Goliath—size does matter: size modulates feature–response binding of irrelevant features

Auteurs: Tarini Singh, Christian Frings

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2020

Abstract

Stimulus and response features are integrated together in episodic traces. A repetition of any of the features results in the retrieval of the entire episodic trace, including the response features. Such S–R bindings have been suggested to account for different priming effects like repetition priming, negative priming and so on. Previous studies on repetition priming have found priming effects to be size invariant. The present study examines whether the size invariance in previous priming studies was due to the absence of size–response binding. In two experiments, size was varied orthogonally to the response, either without varying any other stimulus features (Experiment 1) or while varying another stimulus feature (Experiment 2). A significant size–response binding effect was observed in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2. The results suggest that size is involved in feature–response binding and can retrieve the response upon repetition. However, this retrieval is extinguished if another stimulus feature is varied simultaneously. The results are discussed against the background of S–R binding as the mechanism underlying repetition priming.

vorige artikel What was that object? On the role of identity information in the formation of object files and conscious object perception

volgende artikel Advantage of audition over vision in a perceptual timing task but not in a sensorimotor timing task

We use the term ‘information’ loosely to mean any new input from a particular stimulus, irrespective of whether this input is informative or predictive or not.

Since the features were varied in a blockwise manner, a control analysis with block sequence as a between-subjects factor was run. The four-way interaction of feature × response relation × distractor relation x sequence was marginally significant for the RTs, F(1, 28) = 3.73, p = 0.064, η _p ² = 0.12.

In sequence 1 (shape block first size block second) the three-way interaction of feature × response relation × distractor relation was significant, F(1, 14) = 24.90, p < 0.001, η _p ² = 0.64 (shape DRB effect = 16.80 ms, size DRB effect = -5.10 ms).

For sequence 2 (size block first shape block second), the three-way interaction was not significant, F(1, 14) = 0.10, p < 0.759, η _p ² = 0.01. The size DRB effect (5.62 ms) was not significantly different from zero, t(14) = 0.80, p = 0.440, d = 0.21, while the DRB effect for shape (8.40 ms) was significantly different from zero, t(14) = 2.38, p = 0.032, d = 0.62.

To quantify the evidence against the binding effect for size, a single sample Bayesian t test was run using JASP (Love et al., 2015). The Bayes factor in favour of the null hypothesis was BF₀₁ = 5.134. According to the rules of thumb (Raftery, 1995), this provides positive evidence for the null hypothesis.

Allenmark, F., Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2015). A new look on S-R associations: How S and R link. Acta Psychologica, 160, 161–169.PubMed

Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 121.

Chauncey, K., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2008). Effects of stimulus font and size on masked repetition priming: An event-related potentials (ERP) investigation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(1), 183–200.PubMedPubMedCentral

Colzato, L. S., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 705–716.PubMed

Colzato, L. S., Van Wouwe, N. C., & Hommel, B. (2007). Feature binding and affect: Emotional modulation of visuo-motor integration. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 440–446.PubMed

Cooper, L. A., Schacter, D. L., Ballesteros, S., & Moore, C. (1992). Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of size and reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 43.PubMed

de Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291(5509), 1803–1806.PubMed

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.PubMed

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.PubMed

Fiser, J., & Biederman, I. (1995). Size invariance in visual object priming of gray-scale images. Perception, 24(7), 741–748.PubMed

Frings, C. (2011). On the decay of distractor-response episodes. Experimental Psychology, 58, 125–131.PubMed

Frings, C., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Hommel, B., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Moeller, B., Möller, M., Pfister, R. & Philipp, A. (2018). Merkmalsintegration und Abruf als wichtige Prozesse der Handlungssteuerung—eine Paradigmen-übergreifende Perspektive. Psychologische Rundschau.

Frings, C., Merz, S., & Hommel, B. (2019). The impact of stimulus uncertainty on attentional control. Cognition, 183, 208–212.PubMed

Frings, C., & Moeller, B. (2010). Binding targets’ responses to distractors’ locations: Distractor response bindings in a location-priming task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2176–2183.

Frings, C., Moeller, B., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(4), 700–709.

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.PubMed

Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1367–1377.PubMed

Furmanski, C. S., & Engel, S. A. (2000). Perceptual learning in object recognition: Object specificity and size invariance. Vision Research, 40(5), 473–484.PubMed

Grill-Spector, K., Kushnir, T., Edelman, S., Avidan, G., Itzchak, Y., & Malach, R. (1999). Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron, 24(1), 187–203.PubMed

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.PubMedPubMedCentral

Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216.

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500.PubMed

Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2009). When an object is more than a binding of its features: Evidence for two mechanisms of visual feature integration. Visual Cognition, 17(1–2), 120–140.

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Codes and their vicissitudes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(05), 910–926.

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.PubMed

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 & Cognition, 39(8), 1457–1471.

Laub, R., Frings, C., & Moeller, B. (2018). Dissecting stimulus-response binding effects: Grouping by color separately impacts integration and retrieval processes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 1474–1488. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1526-7.CrossRef

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492.

Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 1–35.

Love, J., Selker, R., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Dropmann, D., Verhagen, A. J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). JASP (Version 0.7) [computer software]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Jasp project.

Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2014). Long term response-stimulus associations can influence distractor-response bindings. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 10, 68–80.PubMedPubMedCentral

Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017). Overlearned responses hinder S-R binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1–5.PubMed

Moeller, B., Frings, C., & Pfister, R. (2016). The structure of distractor-response bindings: Conditions for configural and elemental integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(4), 464–479.PubMed

Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus–classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1744–1757.PubMed

Nothdurft, H. C. (1992). Feature analysis and the role of similarity in preattentive vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 52(4), 355–375.PubMed

Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological methodology, 111-163.

Rothermund, K., Wentura, D., & De Houwer, J. (2005). Retrieval of incidental stimulusresponse associations as a source of negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 482–495.PubMed

Schacter, D. L., Cooper, L. A., & Treadwell, J. (1993). Preserved priming of novel objects across size transformation in amnesic patients. Psychological Science, 4(5), 331–335.

Singh, T., & Frings, C. (2018). The influence of visual noise in the binding of irrelevant features to responses. Visual Cognition, 26(10), 780–791.

Singh, T., Moeller, B., Koch, I., & Frings, C. (2018). May I have your attention please: Binding of attended but response-irrelevant features. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1–14.

Spruyt, A., De Houwer, J., & Hermans, D. (2009). Modulation of automatic semantic priming by feature-specific attention allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 37–54.

Srinivas, K. (1996). Size and reflection effects in priming: A test of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory & Cognition, 24(4), 441–452.

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Vuilleumier, P., Henson, R. N., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 5(5), 491.PubMed

Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 361–413.PubMed

Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Guided search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In W. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 99–119). New York: Oxford University Press.

Titel: David and Goliath—size does matter: size modulates feature–response binding of irrelevant features
Auteurs: Tarini Singh
Christian Frings
Publicatiedatum: 24-04-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01188-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2020

Multiple processing limitations underlie multitasking costs

Measuring approach–avoidance tendencies towards food with touchscreen-based arm movements

Does training mental rotation transfer to gains in mathematical competence? Assessment of an at-home visuospatial intervention

Tonal and textural influences on musical sight-reading

Advantage of audition over vision in a perceptual timing task but not in a sensorimotor timing task

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects