Frequency of the first feature in action sequences influences feature binding.

We investigated whether binding among perception and action feature codes is a preliminary step toward creating a more durable memory trace of an action event. If so, increasing the frequency of a particular event (e.g., a stimulus requiring a movement with the left or right hand in an up or down direction) should increase the strength and speed of feature binding for this event. The results from two experiments, using a partial-repetition paradigm, confirmed that feature binding increased in strength and/or occurred earlier for a high-frequency (e.g., left hand moving up) than for a low-frequency (e.g., right hand moving down) event. Moreover, increasing the frequency of the first-specified feature in the action sequence alone (e.g., "left" hand) increased the strength and/or speed of action feature binding (e.g., between the "left" hand and movement in an "up" or "down" direction). The latter finding suggests an update to the theory of event coding, as not all features in the action sequence equally determine binding strength. We conclude that action planning involves serial binding of features in the order of action feature execution (i.e., associations among features are not bidirectional but are directional), which can lead to a more durable memory trace. This is consistent with physiological evidence suggesting that serial order is preserved in an action plan executed from memory and that the first feature in the action sequence may be critical in preserving this serial order.

Holding a manual response sequence in memory can disrupt vocal responses that share semantic features with the manual response.

Holding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) feature. This compatibility interference (CI) occurs for actions that share the same response modality (e.g., manual response). We investigated whether CI can generalize to actions that utilize different response modalities (manual and vocal). In three experiments, participants planned and withheld a sequence of key-presses with the left- or right-hand based on the visual identity of the first stimulus, and then immediately executed a speeded, vocal response ('left' or 'right') to a second visual stimulus. The vocal response was based on discriminating stimulus color (Experiment 1), reading a written word (Experiment 2), or reporting the antonym of a written word (Experiment 3). Results showed that CI occurred when the manual response hand (e.g., left) was compatible with the identity of the vocal response (e.g., 'left') in Experiment 1 and 3, but not in Experiment 2. This suggests that partial overlap of semantic codes is sufficient to obtain CI unless the intervening action can be accessed automatically (Experiment 2). These findings are consistent with the code occupation hypothesis and the general framework of the theory of event coding (Behav Brain Sci 24:849-878, 2001a; Behav Brain Sci 24:910-937, 2001b).

An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus, but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli.

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (e.g., response hand). We investigated whether this phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), occurs for responses associated with a target as well as responses associated with distractors in a visual selection task. Participants planned and withheld a sequence of keypress responses (with their right or left hand), according to the identity of a stimulus (A), and then immediately executed a keypress response (with their right or left hand) to a second stimulus (B), according to the identity of a target letter appearing alone or among distractor letters. Distractor letters were either response compatible or incompatible with the target and appeared either simultaneously with the target (Experiments 1A and 2) or 100 msec before the target (Experiment 1B). Also, stimulus-response mapping was either 1:1 (Experiment 1) or 2:1 (Experiment 2). Results showed that the response to the Stimulus B target was delayed when it required the same response hand as Stimulus A, as opposed to a different hand. Also, the target reaction time for Stimulus B was greater when the target was flanked by incompatible distractors than when it was flanked by compatible distractors. Moreover, the degree of CI was consistent across the compatible-, incompatible-, and no-distractor conditions, indicating that CI generalizes to responses associated with a target, but not to those associated with distractors. Thus, CI occurs at a response selection, not at a response activation stage. Implications for the code occupation account for CI (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002) and an alternative account for CI are discussed.