Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor–response bindings

Distractor inhibition and distractor–response binding were investigated in two experiments by analyzing distractor repetition benefits and their interaction with response repetition effects in a sequential-priming paradigm. Distractor repetition benefits were larger for distractors that were incompatible with the to-be-executed response (task-related distractors) than for distractors that were not assigned to a response (neutral distractors), indicating that the strength of distractor inhibition was a function of response interference for the distractors. In contrast, the distractor–response bindings were found to be of equal strength for both task-related and neutral distractors. Thus, differences in the strengths of distractor inhibition did not affect the integration of distractors with responses into event files. Instead, our results suggest that distractor–response binding and distractor inhibition are independent mechanisms that are recruited for the automatization of behavior and action control.

[1]  S. Tipper,et al.  Inhibition and Interference in Selective Attention: Some Tests of a Neural Network Model , 1996 .

[2]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature binding, attention and object perception. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[4]  A. Mathews,et al.  Bigger than a breadbox? Attention to distractors may not enhance negative priming. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  A. Allport,et al.  Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action , 1987 .

[6]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Priming of Pop-out provides reliable measures of target activation and distractor inhibition in selective attention , 2008, Vision Research.

[7]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Inhibitory Tagging of Stimulus Properties in Inhibition of Return: Effects on Semantic Priming and Flanker Interference , 1999 .

[8]  Negative priming is stronger for task-relevant dimensions: Evidence of flexibility in the selective ignoring of distractor information , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  D L Strayer,et al.  Negative priming and perceptual fluency: More than what meets the eye , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  The effect of cognition on the visually-induced illusion of self-motion (vection) , 2004 .

[11]  J. Müsseler,et al.  When do irrelevant visual stimuli impair processing of identical targets? , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  A E Seiffert,et al.  Selective attention: a reevaluation of the implications of negative priming. , 1998, Psychological review.

[13]  Alejandro Lleras,et al.  Inter-trial inhibition of attention to features is modulated by task relevance. , 2008, Journal of vision.

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

[15]  S. Joordens,et al.  Investigating a memory-based account of negative priming: support for selection-feature mismatch. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  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.

[17]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[18]  D. Loach,et al.  Post-target inhibition: A temporal binding mechanism? , 2003 .

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

[20]  H. Heuer,et al.  Perspectives on Perception and Action , 1989 .

[21]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  The Changing Pattern of Perceptual Analytic Strategies and Response Selection with Practice in a Two-Choice Reaction time task , 1978, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Evidence for episodic retrieval of inadequate prime responses in auditory negative priming. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. , 1991 .

[24]  N Kanwisher,et al.  Negative priming for spatial locations: identity mismatching, not distractor inhibition. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  O. Neumann.  Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention , 1987 .

[26]  E. Hazeltine,et al.  Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Luis Jiménez,et al.  Representing serial action and perception , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  Robert N. Hauke,et al.  Short article: No evidence for a cue mismatch in negative priming , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  W. Neill,et al.  Mechanisms of transfer-inappropriate processing. , 2007 .

[30]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Priming and intrusion errors in RSVP streams with two response dimensions , 2008, Psychological research.

[31]  S. Tipper,et al.  Selective Attention and Priming: Inhibitory and Facilitatory Effects of Ignored Primes , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[32]  J. Houwer,et al.  Stimulus-feature specific negative priming , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[33]  Dennis M Levi,et al.  What limits performance in the amblyopic visual system: seeing signals in noise with an amblyopic brain. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[34]  Christian Frings,et al.  On distractor-repetition benefits in the negative-priming paradigm , 2007 .

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

[36]  W. Neill,et al.  Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in selective attention. , 1977 .

[37]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Prime retrieval of motor responses in negative priming. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  D. Lamy,et al.  Intertrial Repetition Facilitates Selection in Time , 2010, Psychology Science.

[39]  Jun-ichiro Kawahara,et al.  The perceptual and cognitive distractor-previewing effect. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[40]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[41]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[42]  B. DeSchepper,et al.  Costs and benefits of target activation and distractor inhibition in selective attention. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  S. Tipper.  Does Negative Priming Reflect Inhibitory Mechanisms? A Review and Integration of Conflicting Views , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[44]  H. Gibbons,et al.  Flanker negative priming from spatially unpredictable primes: an ERP study. , 2010, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[45]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Inhibition in Cognition , 2007 .

[46]  Arnold D. Well,et al.  Effects of irrelevant information on speeded classification tasks: Interference is reduced by habituation. , 1984 .

[47]  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.

[48]  Jutta Stahl,et al.  Early activity in the lateralized readiness potential suggests prime-response retrieval as a source of negative priming. , 2008, Experimental psychology.

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

[50]  M. Braga,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis , 2018, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[51]  S. Tipper,et al.  Behavioural Goals Determine Inhibitory Mechanisms of Selective Attention , 1994 .

[52]  W. Neill,et al.  Persistence of negative priming: II. Evidence for episodic trace retrieval. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  Christian Frings,et al.  To be or not to be...included in an event file: integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus-response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[54]  E Fox,et al.  Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[55]  E. Awh,et al.  Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[56]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attention, Space, and Action: Studies in Cognitive Neuroscience , 2001 .

[57]  S. Tipper,et al.  A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. , 1994 .

[58]  Steven P. Tipper,et al.  Selection for Action: The Role of Inhibitory Mechanisms , 1992 .

[59]  T. Carr,et al.  Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language , 1994 .

[60]  S. Tipper.  The Negative Priming Effect: Inhibitory Priming by Ignored Objects , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

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

[63]  Carina Giesen,et al.  Affective matching moderates S–R binding , 2011, Cognition & emotion.