Does feature-based attention play a role in the episodic retrieval of event files?

In stimulus identification tasks, stimulus and response, and location and response information, is thought to become integrated into a common event representation following a response. Evidence for this feature integration comes from paradigms requiring keypress responses to pairs of sequentially presented stimuli. In such paradigms, there is a robust cost when a target event only partially matches the preceding event representation. This is known as the partial repetition cost. Notably, however, these experiments rely on discrimination responses. Recent evidence has suggested that changing the responses to localization or detection responses eliminates partial repetition costs. If changing the response type can eliminate partial repetition costs it becomes necessary to question whether partial repetition costs reflect feature integration or some other mechanism. In the current study, we look to answer this question by using a design that as closely as possible matched typical partial repetition cost experiments in overall stimulus processing and response requirements. Unlike typical experiments where participants make a cued response to a first stimulus before making a discrimination response to a second stimulus, here we reversed that sequence such that participants made a discrimination response to the first stimulus before making a cued response to the second. In Experiment 1, this small change eliminated or substantially reduced the typically large partial repetition costs. In Experiment 2 we returned to the typical sequence and restored the large partial repetition costs. Experiment 3 confirmed these findings, which have implications for interpreting partial repetition costs and for feature integration theories in general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Intervening response events between identification targets do not always turn repetition benefits into repetition costs , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Christian Frings,et al.  Binding targets’ responses to distractors’ locations: Distractor response bindings in a location-priming task , 2010 .

[3]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Corresponding Authors: Hierarchical Task Representation: Task Files and Response Selection Task-file Representation Task Files Account for Interactions between Discrete Responses , 2022 .

[5]  F. J. Friedrich,et al.  Effects of parietal injury on covert orienting of attention , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[6]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Theory of Event Coding (TEC) V2.0: Representing and controlling perception and action , 2019, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[7]  Christian Frings,et al.  Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[8]  B. Hommel,et al.  Towards a Unitary Approach to Human Action Control , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[10]  M. Donnelly,et al.  Inhibition of return for target discriminations: The effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  H Egeth,et al.  Consequences of allocating attention to locations and to other attributes , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  D. Lamy,et al.  Contingent Attentional Engagement: Stimulus- and Goal-Driven Capture Have Qualitatively Different Consequences , 2018, Psychological science.

[13]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? The role of focal attention and stimulus-response translation rules. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  E Fox,et al.  Inhibitory effects of repeating color and shape: inhibition of return or repetition blindness? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  J. Pratt,et al.  Responding to feature or location: a re-examination of inhibition of return and facilitation of return , 2001, Vision Research.

[16]  B. Hommel,et al.  Attentional control of the creation and retrieval of stimulus–response bindings , 2014, Psychological research.

[17]  B. Hommel How much attention does an event file need? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Response-mediated spatial priming despite perfectly valid target location cues and intervening response events , 2017 .

[19]  B. Hommel,et al.  What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Dissociating Orienting Biases From Integration Effects With Eye Movements , 2018, Psychological science.

[21]  Markus Janczyk,et al.  Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules , 2013, Advances in cognitive psychology.

[22]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements , 2019, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Gary K Grunwald,et al.  GLIMMPSE: Online Power Computation for Linear Models with and without a Baseline Covariate. , 2013, Journal of statistical software.

[25]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Location vs Feature: Reaction Time Reveals Dissociation Between Two Visual Functions , 1996, Vision Research.

[26]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Gianluca Campana,et al.  Repetition effects of features and spatial position: evidence for dissociable mechanisms. , 2009, Spatial vision.

[28]  B. Hommel Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  D. Lamy,et al.  Attentional capture and engagement during the attentional blink: A "camera" metaphor of attention. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  C. Frings,et al.  Binding abstract concepts , 2019, Psychological research.

[31]  T. Egner Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[32]  B. Hommel Between Persistence and Flexibility: The Yin and Yang of Action Control , 2015 .

[33]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Feature integration in basic detection and localization tasks: Insights from the attentional orienting literature , 2018, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[34]  Repetition priming reveals sustained facilitation and transient inhibition in reaction time. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes , 1999 .

[36]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  B. Hommel,et al.  Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control , 2012, Psychological research.

[38]  B. Hommel,et al.  When an object is more than a binding of its features: Evidence for two mechanisms of visual feature integration , 2009 .

[39]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[41]  Andrea Kiesel,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance Do Endogenous and Exogenous Action Control Compete for Perception ? , 2011 .

[42]  Michael W. Cole,et al.  Reflexive activation of newly instructed stimulus–response rules: evidence from lateralized readiness potentials in no-go trials , 2015, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[43]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Testing the role of response repetition in spatial priming in visual search , 2018, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[44]  B. Hommel,et al.  Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration , 2004 .

[45]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.