Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Keywords
Institute
- Psychologie (2)
- Fachbereich 1 (1)
At any given moment, our senses are assaulted with a flood of information from the environment around us. We need to pick our way through all this information in order to be able to effectively respond to that what is relevant to us. In most cases we are usually able to select information relevant to our intentions from what is not relevant. However, what happens to the information that is not relevant to us? Is this irrelevant information completely ignored so that it does not affect our actions? The literature suggests that even though we mayrnignore an irrelevant stimulus, it may still interfere with our actions. One of the ways in which irrelevant stimuli can affect actions is by retrieving a response with which it was associated. An irrelevant stimulus that is presented in close temporal contiguity with a relevant stimulus can be associated with the response made to the relevant stimulus " an observation termed distractor-response binding (Rothermund, Wentura, & De Houwer, 2005). The studies presented in this work take a closer look at such distractor-response bindings, and therncircumstances in which they occur. Specifically, the study reported in chapter 6 examined whether only an exact repetition of the distractor can retrieve the response with which it was associated, or whether even similar distractors may cause retrieval. The results suggested that even repeating a similar distractor caused retrieval, albeit less than an exact repetition. In chapter 7, the existence of bindings between a distractor and a response were tested beyond arnperceptual level, to see whether they exist at an (abstract) conceptual level. Similar to perceptual repetition, distractor-based retrieval of the response was observed for the repetition of concepts. The study reported in chapter 8 of this work examined the influence of attention on the feature-response binding of irrelevant features. The results pointed towards a stronger binding effects when attention was directed towards the irrelevant feature compared to whenrnit was not. The study in chapter 9 presented here looked at the processes underlying distractor-based retrieval and distractor inhibition. The data suggest that motor processes underlie distractor-based retrieval and cognitive process underlie distractor inhibition. Finally, the findings of all four studies are also discussed in the context of learning.
Action control theories assume that stimulus and response features are integrated or bound into short term episodic traces. A repetition of any of these features results in a retrieval of the entire episodic trace, and can thus facilitate or interfere with future actions. Along with stimuli features, features of the response and any other irrelevant stimuli that are present, are also integrated into such traces and can influence future actions. Using word stimuli, Singh et al. (2018) observed that such so-called binding effects are larger for attended features relative to unattended features. This was the case even for features generally believed to be automatically processed, like valence. Since previous research has shown differences in the processing of word and picture stimuli, it is questionable whether the attentional modulations in the above study would extend to picture stimuli. In order to examine this question, Experiment 1 replicated the design of Singh et al. (2018) but used picture instead of word stimuli. In order to directly compare word and picture stimuli, the data of Singh et al (2018) were re-analysed together with the data of the present study. In Experiment 2, the alternative hypothesis, that the effects were driven by the encoding of stimulus contingencies, was tested. Taken together, the findings of the present study replicate those of Singh et al. (2018), indicating that even with picture stimuli, valence related binding effects are modulated by attention allocation.
