Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Five experiments investigated the spontaneous integration of stimulus and response features. Participants performed simple, prepared responses (R1) to the mere presence of Go signals (S1) before carrying out another, freely chosen response (R2) to another stimulus (S2), the main question being whether the likelihood of repeating a response depends on whether or not the stimulus, or some of its features, are repeated. Indeed, participants were more likely to repeat the previous response if stimulus form or color was repeated than if it was alternated. The same was true for stimulus location, but only if location was made task-relevant, whether by defining the response set in terms of location, by requiring the report of S2 location, or by having S1 to be selected against a distractor. These findings suggest that task-relevant stimulus and response features are spontaneously integrated into independent, local event files, each linking one stimulus to one response feature. Upon reactivation of one member of the binary link activation is spread to the other, thereby increasing the likelihood to repeat a response if one or more stimulus features are repeated. These findings support the idea that both perceptual events and action plans are cognitively represented in terms of their features, and that feature-integration processes cross borders between perception and action.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Alexander, G. E. & Crutcher, M D. (1990). Preparation for movement: neural representations of intended direction in three motor areas of the monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 64, 133–150. PubMed
Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90–102.
Bonnet, M. & MacKay, W. A. (1989). Changes in contingent-negative variation and reaction time related to precueing of direction and force of a forearm movement. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 33, 147–152. PubMed
Duncan, J. (1996). Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.). Attention and performance, vol XVI (pp. 549–578). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2005). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, this issue.
Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4, 385–390. CrossRef
Georgopoulos, A. P. (1990). Neurophysiology of reaching. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII: motor representation and control (pp. 227–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hommel, B. (1996a). The cognitive representation of action: automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176–186. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1996b). S–R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus–response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: North-Holland. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2002). Responding to object files: automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus–response compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 567–580.
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521. CrossRef
Hommel, B., Pösse, B., & Waszak, F. (2000). Contextualization in perception and action. Psychologica Belgica, 40, 227–245.
Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P., (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. Carr (Eds.). Inhibitory mechanisms in attention memory an language. San Diego: Academic.
Kalaska, J. F. & Hyde, M. L. (1985). Area 4 and area 5: differences between the load direction-dependent discharge variability of cells during active postural fixation. Experimental Brain Research, 59, 197–202. CrossRef
Kirby, N. (1980). Sequential effects in choice reaction time. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 129–172). London: Academic.
Kornblum, S. (1973). Sequential effects in choice RT: a tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.). Attention & performance: vol IV (pp. 259–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kornblum, S., & Stevens, G. (2002). Sequential effects of dimensional overlap: findings and issues. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.). Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention & performance: vol XIX (pp. 9–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2005). Tailoring perception and action to the task at hand. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. in press.
Leslie, A. M., Xu, F., Tremoulet, P. D., & Sholl, B. J. (1998). Indexing and the object concept: developing ’what’ and ’where’ systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 10–18. CrossRef
Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Low-level constraints on high-level selection: switching tasks with and without switching stimulus/response objects. Psychological Research, this issue.
Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2005). Repetition costs in word identification: evaluating a stimulus–response integration account. Psychological Research, this issue.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 2–25.
Riehle, A. & Requin, J. (1989). Monkey primary motor and premotor cortex: single-cell activity related to prior information about direction and extent of an intended movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 61, 534–549. PubMed
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1987). Successive approximations to a model of human motor programming. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 21, 153–182. CrossRef
Rosenbaum, D. A., Weber, R. J., Hazelett, W. M. & Hindorff, V. (1986). The parameter remapping effect in human performance: evidence from tongue twisters and finger fumblers. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 710–725. CrossRef
Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 598–616. CrossRef
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625–1640. CrossRef
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.). Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention & performance: vol XIX (pp. 538–552). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stoffer, T. H., & Yakin, A. R. (1994). The functional role of attention for spatial coding on the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135. CrossRef
Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects. In The 14th Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.
Tune, G. S. (1964). A brief survey of variables that influence random generation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 18, 705–710. PubMed
Wenke, D., Gaschler, R., & Nattkemper, D. (2005). Instruction-induced feature binding. Psychological Research, this issue.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 202–238.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.). Attention (pp. 13–74). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
- Feature integration across perception and action: event files affect response choice