Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

The disintegration of event files over time: Decay or interference?

Tytuł:
The disintegration of event files over time: Decay or interference?
Autorzy:
Hommel B; Institute for Psychological Research & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. .; Department of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China. .
Frings C; Institute for Psychology, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.
Źródło:
Psychonomic bulletin & review [Psychon Bull Rev] 2020 Aug; Vol. 27 (4), pp. 751-757.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: <2013-> : [New York : Springer]
Original Publication: Austin, TX : Psychonomic Society, Inc., c1994-
MeSH Terms:
Learning*
Psychomotor Performance*
Reaction Time*
Adult ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Time Factors ; Young Adult
References:
Altmann, E.M., & Schunn, C.D. (2012). Decay versus interference: A new look at an old interaction. Psychological Science, 23, 1435–1437. (PMID: 10.1177/0956797612446027)
Crowder, R.G. (1967). Prefix effects in immediate memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 450–461. (PMID: 10.1037/h0082997)
DeYoe, E. A., & Van Essen, D. C. (1988). Concurrent processing streams in monkey visual cortex. Trends in Neuroscience, 11, 219–226. (PMID: 10.1016/0166-2236(88)90130-0)
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175–191. (PMID: 10.3758/BF03193146)
Frings, C. (2011). On the decay of distractor-response episodes. Experimental Psychology, 58, 125–131. (PMID: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000077)
Frings, C., Moeller, B., & Horner, A. (2015). On the durability of bindings between responses and response-irrelevant stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 161, 73–78. (PMID: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.08.009)
Frings, C., Rothermund, K. & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1367–1377. (PMID: 10.1080/17470210600955645)
Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Moeller, B., Möller, M., Pfister, R., & Philipp, A. (2020). Binding and retrieval in action control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences,24, 375–387.
Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). 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. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37, 1209–1227.
Georgopoulos, A. P. (1990). Neurophysiology of reaching. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and Performance XIII: Motor representation and control (pp. 227–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. (PMID: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.004)
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216. (PMID: 10.1080/713756773)
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500. (PMID: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007)
Hommel, B. (2019). Theory of Event Coding (TEC) V2.0: Representing and controlling perception and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,81, 2139–2154.
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521. (PMID: 10.1080/13506280344000400)
Kahana, M. J., & Adler, M. (2002). Note on the power law of forgetting. bioRxiv 173765. https://doi.org/10.1101/173765.
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219. (PMID: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O)
Kühn, S., Keizer, A., Colzato, L.S., Rombouts, S.A.R.B., & Hommel, B. (2011). The neural underpinnings of event-file management: Evidence for stimulus-induced activation of, and competition among stimulus-response bindings. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 896–904. (PMID: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21485)
McGeoch, J. A. (1932). Forgetting and the law of disuse. Psychological Review, 39, 352–370. (PMID: 10.1037/h0069819)
Moeller, B. & Frings, C. (2017). Overlearned responses hinder S-R binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1–5. (PMID: 28004956)
Pösse, B., Waszak, F., & Hommel, B. (2006). Do stimulus-response bindings survive a task switch? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 640–651. (PMID: 10.1080/09541440500423285)
Spadaro, A., He, C., & Milliken, B. (2012). Response to an intervening event reverses nonspatial repetition effects in 2AFC tasks: Nonspatial IOR? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,74, 331–349.
Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171–178. (PMID: 10.1016/S0959-4388(96)80070-5)
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790. (PMID: 10.1037/a002279021280965)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20200508 Date Completed: 20210106 Latest Revision: 20211216
Update Code:
20240105
PubMed Central ID:
PMC7399672
DOI:
10.3758/s13423-020-01738-3
PMID:
32378119
Czasopismo naukowe
When facing particular combinations of stimuli and responses, people create temporary event files integrating the corresponding stimulus and response features. Repeating one or more of these features retrieves the entire event file, which impairs performance if not all features repeat (partial-repetition costs). We studied how durable event files are over time and how sensitive they are to intervening objects or stimulus-response events. After-effects of relevant and irrelevant stimulus-response bindings were assessed after intervals of 1 to 5 s between creation and retrieval of the binding that were either unfilled (Experiment 1A), filled with 0, 2, or 4 presentations of the same neutral stimulus (1B), or of changing stimuli (1C), or filled with 0, 2, or 4 task-unrelated stimulus-response combinations (2A) or the same number of repetitions of the binding-inducing stimulus-response combination (2B). Taken altogether, the findings show a strong impact on the duration of the interval but no systematic effect of the type and number of intervening events. This suggests that event files disintegrate over time, as a function of spontaneous decay, but not due to interference from other bindings.

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies