Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2018

08-04-2017 | Original Article

Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes

Auteurs: Christina U. Pfeuffer, Theresa Hosp, Eva Kimmig, Karolina Moutsopoulou, Florian Waszak, Andrea Kiesel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Responding to stimuli leads to the formation of stimulus–response (S–R) associations that allow stimuli to subsequently automatically trigger associated responses. A recent study has shown that S–R associations are established not only by active task execution, but also by the simultaneous presentation of stimuli and verbal codes denoting responses in the absence of own action [Pfeuffer et al. (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 43:328–347, 2017)]. Here, we used an item-specific priming paradigm to investigate whether the stimulus part of S–R associations formed based on task execution and verbal codes is represented in abstract or specific format by examining whether S–R associations are retrieved for perceptually different forms of the same stimulus or not. Between the prime and probe instance of a stimulus, its format switched from image to word or vice versa. We found that, irrespective of whether stimuli were primed by task execution or verbal coding, performance was impaired when S–R mappings switched rather than repeated between the prime and probe instance of a stimulus. The finding that prime S–R mappings affected probe performance even when stimulus format switched indicates that stimuli were represented in abstract form in S–R association based on both task execution and verbal coding. Furthermore, we found no performance benefits for stimuli primed and probed in the same format rather than different formats, suggesting that stimuli were not additionally represented in specific format. Overall, our findings demonstrate the adaptability of automatized behaviors and indicate that abstract stimulus representations allow S–R associations to generalize across perceptually different stimulus formats.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Please note that the percentage of excluded probe trials is not the summation of the previously mentioned percentages of excluded trials, as several exclusion criteria can apply to one probe trial. For instance, participants could have responded incorrectly during both prime and corresponding probe. Probe trials with erroneous responses or response omissions during primes are commonly excluded in item-specific priming studies, as it cannot be determined which associations participants might have formed during such prime trials.
 
2
Please note that the stimulus sets in the experiments differed partly. Additionally, mean probe RTs (and PEs) differed between the three experiments. For both stimuli probed in word and image format, RTs in Experiment 1, in which stimulus format changed between prime and probe, were larger than in Experiment 2 and the study of Pfeuffer et al. (2017), respectively. As some priming effects increase in size with increasing RTs, differences in the size of S–A and S–C switch costs between stimuli probed in the same vs. a different format might thus have been overshadowed by the overall difference in RTs.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Allenmark, F., Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2015). A new look on S–R associations: How S and R link. Acta Psychologica, 160, 161–169.CrossRefPubMed Allenmark, F., Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2015). A new look on S–R associations: How S and R link. Acta Psychologica, 160, 161–169.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 14325–14329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 14325–14329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference 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, 742–756.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, 742–756.PubMed
go back to reference Dennis, I., & Schmidt, K. (2003). Associative processes in repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 532–538.PubMed Dennis, I., & Schmidt, K. (2003). Associative processes in repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 532–538.PubMed
go back to reference Dobbins, I. G., Schnyer, D. M., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning. Nature, 428, 316–319.CrossRefPubMed Dobbins, I. G., Schnyer, D. M., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning. Nature, 428, 316–319.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus–response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus–response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRef Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRef
go back to reference 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, 757–779.CrossRefPubMed 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, 757–779.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Incongruent abstract stimulus–response bindings result in response interference: fMRI and EEG evidence from visual object classification priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 760–773.CrossRefPubMed Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Incongruent abstract stimulus–response bindings result in response interference: fMRI and EEG evidence from visual object classification priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 760–773.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hsu, Y. F., & Waszak, F. (2012). Stimulus–classification traces are dominant in response learning. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 262–268.CrossRefPubMed Hsu, Y. F., & Waszak, F. (2012). Stimulus–classification traces are dominant in response learning. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 262–268.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRef Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRef
go back to reference Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRef Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRef
go back to reference Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus–classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and resilience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1744–1757.CrossRef Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus–classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and resilience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1744–1757.CrossRef
go back to reference Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus–response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 328–347.PubMed Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus–response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 328–347.PubMed
go back to reference Schnyer, D. M., Dobbins, I. G., Nicholls, L., Davis, S., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Item to decision mapping in rapid response learning. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1472–1482.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schnyer, D. M., Dobbins, I. G., Nicholls, L., Davis, S., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Item to decision mapping in rapid response learning. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1472–1482.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Waszak, F. (2010). Across-task long-term priming: Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1414–1429.CrossRefPubMed Waszak, F. (2010). Across-task long-term priming: Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1414–1429.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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, 361–413.CrossRefPubMed 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, 361–413.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes
Auteurs
Christina U. Pfeuffer
Theresa Hosp
Eva Kimmig
Karolina Moutsopoulou
Florian Waszak
Andrea Kiesel
Publicatiedatum
08-04-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0861-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2018

Psychological Research 4/2018 Naar de uitgave