Too much information … The influence of target selection difficulty on binding processes

References

• Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colzato, L. S., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039515
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. Psychological Review, 87(3), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flankers task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 2(2–3), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506289508401726
   Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, E., & De Fockert, J. W. (1998). Negative priming depends on prime-probe similarity: Evidence for episodic retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(1), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Moeller, B., Möller, M., Pfister, R., & Philipp, A. (2020). Binding and retrieval in action control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). To be or not to be … Included in an event file: Integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus-response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1209–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2017). How perception guides action: Figure-ground segmentation modulates integration of context features into SR episodes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(11), 1720–1729. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous response to targets. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600955645
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giesen, C., & Rothermund, K. (2014). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses and previous targets: Experimental dissociations of distractor–response and distractor–target bindings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1-2), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 1067–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11(4), 483–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., Memelink, J., Zmigrod, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Attentional control of the creation and retrieval of stimulus–response bindings. Psychological Research, 78(4), 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0503-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JASP Team. (2018). JASP (Version 0.8. 6) [Computer software].
   Google Scholar
• Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6(6), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00527.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laub, R., & Frings, C. (2020). Distractor-based retrieval in action control: The influence of encoding specificity. Psychological Research, 84(3), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1082-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laub, R., & Frings, C. (2022). Investigating the influence of salience on distractor-response binding. Submitted Manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Laub, R., Frings, C., & Moeller, B. (2018). Dissecting stimulus–response binding effects: Grouping by color separately impacts integration and retrieval processes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1474–1488. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1526-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laub, R., Merz, S., Dröschel, H., & Frings, C. (2021). The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli—distractor–response binding within and between the senses. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(5), 2256–2266. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02249-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.451
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8(5), 395–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00432.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1038–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, N., Lin, Z., Zokaei, N., & Thoma, V. (2009). The role of perceptual load in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1346–1358. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2014). Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0648-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moeller, B., Hommel, B., & Frings, C. (2015). From hands to feet: Abstract response representations in distractor–response bindings. Acta Psychologica, 159, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.05.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmalbrock, P., Laub, R., & Frings, C. (2021). Integrating salience and action–increased integration strength through salience. Visual Cognition, 29(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2020.1871455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, T., Moeller, B., Koch, I., & Frings, C. (2018). May I have your attention please: Binding of attended but response-irrelevant features. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(5), 1143–1156. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1498-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence, C., & Frings, C. (2020). Multisensory feature integration in (and out) of the focus of spatial attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 363–376. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01813-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treisman, A. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(4), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & Van Der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar