title: Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor-response bindings.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Am Steiger 3, Haus 1, D-07743 Jena, Germany.
authors.forename: Carina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Giesen
authors.forename: Christian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Frings
authors.forename: Klaus
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Rothermund
mesh_terms: D001245:Association Learning; D001288:Attention; D001332:Automatism / Q000523:psychology; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005260:Female; D006185:Habituation, Psychophysiologic; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011930:Reaction Time; D060865:Repetition Priming; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):742-56
references.pmid: 19379047
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2001 Oct;29(7):931-9
references.pmid: 11820752
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Aug;26(4):1478-96
references.pmid: 10946726
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Jun;20(3):613-23
references.pmid: 8027715
references.citation: Vision Res. 2008 Jan;48(1):30-41
references.pmid: 18054983
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Aug;63(6):1063-71
references.pmid: 11578050
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2005 Jul;67(5):897-909
references.pmid: 16334061
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
references.pmid: 17695343
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Aug;14(4):742-8
references.pmid: 17972743
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Oct;17(5):603-23
references.pmid: 21037157
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001 May;54(2):321-43
references.pmid: 11394050
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1985 Nov;37(4):591-611
references.pmid: 4081102
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1978 Aug;30(3):417-27
references.pmid: 693787
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Oct;31(5):1067-82
references.pmid: 16262499
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2001;65(2):81-97
references.pmid: 11414007
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Oct;60(10):1367-77
references.pmid: 17853245
references.citation: J Vis. 2004 Oct 27;4(10):891-903
references.pmid: 15595893
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1994 Nov;56(5):565-74
references.pmid: 7991353
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Feb;21(2):243-51
references.pmid: 20424053
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Nov;17(6):1136-45
references.pmid: 1838386
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Nov;8(11):494-500
references.pmid: 15491903
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Sep;37(5):1209-27
references.pmid: 21707218
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1985 Nov;37(4):571-90
references.pmid: 4081101
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Apr;35(2):408-23
references.pmid: 19331497
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Apr;105(2):203-29
references.pmid: 9577237
references.citation: Int J Psychophysiol. 2010 Mar;75(3):339-48
references.pmid: 20079389
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2008 May;72(3):281-8
references.pmid: 17534656
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Nov 21;8(15):12.1-15
references.pmid: 19146296
references.citation: Cogn Emot. 2011 Feb;25(2):342-50
references.pmid: 21432676
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Aug;32(4):932-43
references.pmid: 16846289
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):624-52
references.pmid: 11488380
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2003 May;6(5):450-2
references.pmid: 12704394
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Dec;28(6):1323-9
references.pmid: 12542130
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Sep;18(5):993-1000
references.pmid: 1402720
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Apr;62(4):645-52
references.pmid: 19123117
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 May;31(3):482-95
references.pmid: 15910132
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2008;55(3):164-72
references.pmid: 18549163
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Apr;59(4):683-93
references.pmid: 16707357