» Articles » PMID: 35048312

Saliency Determines the Integration of Contextual Information into Stimulus-response Episodes

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology
Date 2022 Jan 20
PMID 35048312
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When humans perform a task, it has been shown that elements of this task, like stimulus (e.g., target and distractor) and response, are bound together into a common episodic representation called stimulus-response episode (or event file). Recently, the context, a completely task-irrelevant stimulus, was found to be integrated into an episode as well. However, instead of being bound directly with the response in a binary fashion, the context modulates the binary binding between the distractor and response. This finding raises the questions of whether the context can also enter into a binary binding with the response, and if so, what determines the way of its integration. In order to resolve these questions, saliency of the context was manipulated in three experiments by changing the loudness (Experiment 1) and emotional valence (Experiment 2A and 2B) of the context. All experiments implemented the four-alternative auditory negative priming paradigm introduced by Mayr and Buchner (2006, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32[4], 932-943). Results showed that the integration of context changed as a function of its saliency level. Specifically, the context of low saliency was not bound at all, the context of moderate saliency modulated the binary binding between the distractor and response, whereas the context of high saliency entered into a binary binding with the response. The current results extend a previous finding by Hommel (2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8[11], 494-500) that there is a saliency threshold which determines whether a stimulus is bound or not, by suggesting that a second threshold determines the specific structure (i.e., binary vs. configural) of the resulting binding.

Citing Articles

Expanding the boundaries: investigating the integration of contextual information across a spectrum of inter-trial variability.

Qiu R, Mo Y Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1494698.

PMID: 39635707 PMC: 11616178. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1494698.


N-2 Repetition Costs in Task Switching: Task Inhibition or Interference Between Task Episodes?.

Schuch S, Keppler E J Cogn. 2022; 5(1):48.

PMID: 36382216 PMC: 9635329. DOI: 10.5334/joc.244.


Inter-Trial Variability of Context Influences the Binding Structure in a Stimulus-Response Episode.

Qiu R, Moller M, Koch I, Mayr S J Cogn. 2022; 5(1):25.

PMID: 36072122 PMC: 9400641. DOI: 10.5334/joc.215.

References
1.
Dutzi I, Hommel B . The microgenesis of action-effect binding. Psychol Res. 2008; 73(3):425-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-008-0161-7. View

2.
Smith S, Vela E . Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 8(2):203-20. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196157. View

3.
Pearce J, Bouton M . Theories of associative learning in animals. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52:111-39. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.111. View

4.
Feldman J . The neural binding problem(s). Cogn Neurodyn. 2014; 7(1):1-11. PMC: 3538094. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-012-9219-8. View

5.
Frings C, Hommel B, Koch I, Rothermund K, Dignath D, Giesen C . Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC). Trends Cogn Sci. 2020; 24(5):375-387. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004. View