Stimulus–response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation

Repetition priming can be caused by the rapid retrieval of previously encoded stimulus–response (S–R) bindings. S–R bindings have recently been shown to simultaneously code multiple levels of response representation, from specific Motor-actions to more abstract Decisions (“yes”/”no”) and Classifications (e.g., “man-made”/”natural”). Using an experimental design that reverses responses at all of these levels, we assessed whether S–R bindings also code multiple levels of stimulus representation. Across two experiments, we found effects of response reversal on priming when switching between object pictures and object names, consistent with S–R bindings that code stimuli at an abstract level. Nonetheless, the size of this reversal effect was smaller for such across-format (e.g., word–picture) repetition than for within-format (e.g., picture–picture) repetition, suggesting additional coding of format-specific stimulus representations. We conclude that S–R bindings simultaneously represent both stimuli and responses at multiple levels of abstraction.

[1]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Do stimulus–response bindings survive a task switch? , 2006 .

[2]  R. Henson,et al.  Priming, response learning and repetition suppression , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  B. Hommel,et al.  The costs and benefits of cross-task priming , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[4]  G. Logan Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[5]  Richard L. Abrams,et al.  Subliminal words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses) , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Repetition suppression in occipital–temporal visual areas is modulated by physical rather than semantic features of objects , 2008, NeuroImage.

[7]  Anthony D. Wagner,et al.  Neural Priming in Human Frontal Cortex: Multiple Forms of Learning Reduce Demands on the Prefrontal Executive System , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  The Neural Underpinnings of Event-file Management: Evidence for Stimulus-induced Activation of and Competition among Stimulus–Response Bindings , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Jordan Grafman,et al.  Handbook of Neuropsychology , 1991 .

[10]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Integrating faces, houses, motion, and action: spontaneous binding across ventral and dorsal processing streams. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[11]  D. Wentura,et al.  Distractor Repetitions Retrieve Previous Responses to Targets , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  Wilma Koutstaal,et al.  Perceive-decide-act, perceive-decide-act: how abstract is repetition-related decision learning? , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  H. Roediger Implicit memory in normal human subjects , 1993 .

[14]  G. Logan Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  B. Hommel Event Files: Evidence for Automatic Integration of Stimulus-Response Episodes , 1998 .

[16]  Jeffrey S. Bowers,et al.  In defense of abstractionist theories of repetition priming and word identification , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  David A. Balota,et al.  Repetition priming across distinct contexts: effects of lexical status, word frequency, and retrieval test. , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  J. Bowers,et al.  In search of perceptual priming in a semantic classification task. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  A. Allport,et al.  Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[20]  H. Roediger,et al.  Direct comparison of four implicit memory tests. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  D. Schacter,et al.  Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning , 2004, Nature.

[22]  R. Henson,et al.  Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  M. Damian,et al.  Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: automaticity rather than semantic processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Timothy P. McNamara,et al.  Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) , 2000 .

[25]  J. de Houwer,et al.  Retrieval of incidental stimulus-response associations as a source of negative priming. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  T. Blaxton Dissociations among memory measures in memory-impaired subjects: Evidence for a processing account of memory , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[27]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[28]  D. Schacter,et al.  Rapid response learning in amnesia: Delineating associative learning components in repetition priming , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  B. Hommel,et al.  The Effect of Fmri (noise) on Cognitive Control , 2022 .

[30]  B. Hommel,et al.  Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  T. McNamara,et al.  Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming. , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[32]  D. Schacter,et al.  Item to decision mapping in rapid response learning , 2007, Memory & cognition.