Nothing else matters: Stimulus-response binding and retrieval is independent of affective consequences.

Stimulus-response binding and retrieval (SRBR) is a fundamental mechanism driving behavior automatization. In five experiments, we investigated the modulatory role of affective consequences (AC) on SRBR effects to test whether binding/retrieval can explain instrumental learning (i.e., the "law of effect"). SRBR effects were assessed in a sequential prime-probe design, with an orthogonal variation of response relation (response repetition vs. change) by distractor relation (word repetition vs. change). Binding/retrieval effects are measured by an interaction of the two factors, with distractor repetitions inducing a retrieval of the prime episode and a tendency to re-enact the previous response, which leads to facilitation in conditions where the response must be repeated, but leads to interference when the required response changes from prime to probe. Positive, neutral, or negative events signaling changes in points that were linked to monetary gains or losses were delivered after every trial to investigate whether AC modulate the binding/retrieval effect. Consistently across all five experiments (total N= 466), robust SRBR effects were obtained, but we did not find any evidence for an affective modulation of these binding/retrieval effects, indicating that these effects are automatic and independent of AC. In particular, Experiment 5 demonstrated a dissociation between instrumental learning via AC (reflected in higher frequencies of rewarded responses) and SRBR, which was not influenced by AC following a response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What is behind partial repetition costs? Event-files do not fully occupy bound feature codes.

Feature binding accounts state that features of perceived and produced events are bound into event-files. Performance while responding to an event is impaired when some, as opposed to all or none, of this event's features already belong to a previous event-file. While these partial repetition costs are generally considered to be indicators of feature binding, their cause is still unclear. Possibly, features are fully occupied when bound in an event-file and must be unbound in a time-consuming process before they can enter a novel event-file. In this study, we tested this code occupation account. Participants responded to the font color (target) of a word (distractor) by pressing one of three keys (response) while ignoring the word meaning. We measured partial repetition costs from prime to probe while introducing an intermediate trial. We compared sequences in which this intermediate trial did not repeat any prime features and sequences in which it repeated either the prime response or distractor. Partial repetition costs occurred in the probe, even when one (vs. none) of the prime features repeated in the intermediate trial, although significantly reduced. Thus, single bindings do not fully occupy feature codes. By ruling out a possible mechanism behind partial repetition costs, the present study contributes to the further specification of feature binding accounts.

Frankly, My Error, I Don't Give a Damn: Retrieval of Goal-Based but Not Coactivation-Based Bindings after Erroneous Responses.

Previous studies demonstrated binding and retrieval of stimuli and correct responses even for those episodes in which the actual response was wrong (goal-based binding and retrieval). In the current study, we tested whether binding based on a co-activation of stimuli and erroneous responses occurred simultaneously with goal-based binding, which could have been masked by a more efficient retrieval of goal-based bindings in previous studies. In a pre-registered experiment (n = 62), we employed a sequential prime-probe design with a three-choice colour categorisation task. Including three different responses in the task allowed us to conduct separate tests for stimulus-based episodic retrieval of either the correct response (goal-based) or of the actual erroneous response (coactivation-based) after committing an error. Replicating previous findings, our study provides support for goal-based binding of stimuli and correct responses after errors, while showing that there is no independent coactivation-based binding of the erroneous response itself.

Goal-Based Binding of Irrelevant Stimulus Features for Action Slips.

Binding between representations of stimuli and actions and later retrieval of these compounds provide efficient shortcuts in action control. Recent observations indicate that these mechanisms are not only effective when action episodes go as planned, but they also seem to be at play when actions go awry. Moreover, the human cognitive system even corrects traces of error commission on the fly because it binds the intended but not actually executed response to concurrent task-relevant stimuli, thus enabling retrieval of a correct, but not actually executed response when encountering the stimulus again. However, a plausible alternative interpretation of this finding is that error commission triggers selective strengthening of the instructed stimulus-response mapping instead, thus promoting its efficient application in the future. The experiment presented here makes an unequivocal case for episodic binding and retrieval in erroneous action episodes by showing binding between task-irrelevant stimuli and correct responses.