猜什么?只有正确的选择才能在猜测情景中建立直接的刺激-反应联系

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Attention Perception & Psychophysics Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2
Anna Foerster, Viola Mocke, Birte Moeller, Roland Pfister
{"title":"猜什么?只有正确的选择才能在猜测情景中建立直接的刺激-反应联系","authors":"Anna Foerster,&nbsp;Viola Mocke,&nbsp;Birte Moeller,&nbsp;Roland Pfister","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A central mechanism of human action control is the prompt binding between actions and the stimuli provoking them. Perceiving the same stimuli again retrieves any bound responses, facilitating their execution. An open question is whether such binding and retrieval only emerges when stimulus–response rules are known upon taking action or also when agents are forced to guess and receive feedback about whether they were successful or not afterward. In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that knowing rules before responding would boost binding between stimuli and responses during action-taking relative to guessing situations. Second, we assessed whether the content of the feedback matters for binding in that agents might use feedback to build correct stimulus–response bindings even for wrong guesses. We used a sequential prime-probe design to induce stimulus–response binding for prime responses that were either rule-based or guesses, and to measure retrieval of these bindings in response times and errors in the probe. Results indicate that binding and retrieval emerge for successful but not for wrong guesses. Binding effects for correct guesses were consistently small in effect size, suggesting that pre-established stimulus–response bindings from instructed rules might indeed boost binding when taking action.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":"86 7","pages":"2438 - 2455"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guess what? Only correct choices forge immediate stimulus–response bindings in guessing scenarios\",\"authors\":\"Anna Foerster,&nbsp;Viola Mocke,&nbsp;Birte Moeller,&nbsp;Roland Pfister\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A central mechanism of human action control is the prompt binding between actions and the stimuli provoking them. Perceiving the same stimuli again retrieves any bound responses, facilitating their execution. An open question is whether such binding and retrieval only emerges when stimulus–response rules are known upon taking action or also when agents are forced to guess and receive feedback about whether they were successful or not afterward. In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that knowing rules before responding would boost binding between stimuli and responses during action-taking relative to guessing situations. Second, we assessed whether the content of the feedback matters for binding in that agents might use feedback to build correct stimulus–response bindings even for wrong guesses. We used a sequential prime-probe design to induce stimulus–response binding for prime responses that were either rule-based or guesses, and to measure retrieval of these bindings in response times and errors in the probe. Results indicate that binding and retrieval emerge for successful but not for wrong guesses. Binding effects for correct guesses were consistently small in effect size, suggesting that pre-established stimulus–response bindings from instructed rules might indeed boost binding when taking action.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"volume\":\"86 7\",\"pages\":\"2438 - 2455\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02950-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类行动控制的一个核心机制是行动与刺激之间的迅速结合。再次感知相同的刺激会检索到任何绑定的反应,从而促进它们的执行。一个悬而未决的问题是,这种绑定和检索是否只有在采取行动时知道刺激-反应规则时才会出现,还是也会在行为主体被迫猜测并在事后收到关于他们是否成功的反馈时出现。在两个实验中,我们检验了这样一个假设,即相对于猜测情况,在做出反应之前知道规则会增强行动过程中刺激和反应之间的结合。其次,我们评估了反馈的内容是否会影响约束力,因为即使是错误的猜测,行为主体也可能会利用反馈来建立正确的刺激-反应约束力。我们使用了一个连续的素材-探究设计来诱导基于规则或猜测的素材反应的刺激-反应绑定,并在探究的反应时间和错误中测量这些绑定的检索。结果表明,成功的猜测会出现绑定和检索,而错误的猜测则不会。正确猜测的绑定效应在效应大小上一直较小,这表明在采取行动时,根据指导规则预先建立的刺激-反应绑定确实可能会增强绑定效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Guess what? Only correct choices forge immediate stimulus–response bindings in guessing scenarios

A central mechanism of human action control is the prompt binding between actions and the stimuli provoking them. Perceiving the same stimuli again retrieves any bound responses, facilitating their execution. An open question is whether such binding and retrieval only emerges when stimulus–response rules are known upon taking action or also when agents are forced to guess and receive feedback about whether they were successful or not afterward. In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that knowing rules before responding would boost binding between stimuli and responses during action-taking relative to guessing situations. Second, we assessed whether the content of the feedback matters for binding in that agents might use feedback to build correct stimulus–response bindings even for wrong guesses. We used a sequential prime-probe design to induce stimulus–response binding for prime responses that were either rule-based or guesses, and to measure retrieval of these bindings in response times and errors in the probe. Results indicate that binding and retrieval emerge for successful but not for wrong guesses. Binding effects for correct guesses were consistently small in effect size, suggesting that pre-established stimulus–response bindings from instructed rules might indeed boost binding when taking action.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
期刊最新文献
Disentangling decision errors from action execution in mouse-tracking studies: The case of effect-based action control. Parafoveal N400 effects reveal that word skipping is associated with deeper lexical processing in the presence of context-driven expectations. Correction to: On the relationship between spatial attention and semantics in the context of a Stroop paradigm. Can the left hand benefit from being right? The influence of body side on perceived grasping ability. Gaze-action coupling, gaze-gesture coupling, and exogenous attraction of gaze in dyadic interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1