Item-Specificity and Intention in Episodic Memory

Christina Pfeuffer

doi:10.5334/joc.110

Abstract

Schmidt et al.’s (2020) PEP model accurately reflects the complexity of task switching based on bottom-up assumptions and episodic memory, re-evaluating the contribution of commonly presumed top-down processes. Extending it to long-term bindings and their item-specific effects could eludicate puzzling findings regarding the independence of long-term bindings between stimuli, responses, and task-specific categorizations as well as the relation between short-term and long-term bindings. Moreover, ideomotor theories of action control provide a bottom-up basis of incorporating volition and intentional action into the PEP model which is currently restricted to stimulus-based action.

References

Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000047
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Abrams, R. L., Klinger, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Subliminal words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 100–106. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196262
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aufschnaiter, S., Kiesel, A., Dreisbach, G., Wenke, D., & Thomaschke, R. (2018). Time-based expectancy in temporally structured task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(6), 856–870. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000494
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Daunizeau, J., Den Ouden, H. E., Pessiglione, M., Kiebel, S. J., Stephan, K. E., & Friston, K. J. (2010). Observing the observer (I): meta-bayesian models of learning and decision-making. Plos One, 5(12): e15554. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015554
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Demanet, J., Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Voluntary task switching under load: Contribution of top-down and bottom-up factors in goal-directed behavior. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 387–393. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.3.387
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
de Wit, S., & Dickinson, A. (2009). Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: a case for animal–human translational models. Psychological Research, 73(4), 463–476. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-009-0230-6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dignath, D., & Janczyk, M. (2017). Anticipation of delayed action-effects: Learning when an effect occurs, without knowing what this effect will be. Psychological Research, 81(5), 1072–1083. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0797-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229–240. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 185–207. DOI: 10.3758/BF03212979
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73(4), 512–526. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hommel, B. (2017). Goal-directed actions. In M. R. Waldmann (Ed.), Handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 265–278). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199399550.013.18
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X01000103
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 757–779. DOI: 10.1037/a0015262
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus–response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory & Cognition, 39(8), 1457–1471. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0118-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890). DOI: 10.1037/10538-000
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. DOI: 10.1037/a0019842
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000144
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67(3), 153–159. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-002-0114-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common un-derlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 1–35. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90002-L
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Longman, C. S., Milton, F., Wills, A. J., & Verbruggen, F. (2018). Transfer of learned category-response associations is modulated by instruction. Acta Psychologica, 184, 144–167. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017a). Dissociation of binding and learning processes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 2590–2605. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1393-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2017b). Overlearned responses hinder SR binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 1–5. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000341
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus-classification and stimulus-action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1744–1757. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.984232
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeuffer, C. U., Hosp, T., Kimmig, E., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018a). Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes. Psychological Research, 82(4), 744–758. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0861-y
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeuffer, C. U., Kiesel, A., & Huestegge, L. (2016). A look into the future: Spontaneous anticipatory saccades reflect processes of anticipatory action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1530–1547. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000224
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus-response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 328–347. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000317
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018b). Multiple priming instances increase the impact of practice-based but not verbal code-based stimulus-response associations. Acta Psychologica, 184, 100–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.05.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate: Anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2117–2121. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613489139
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ramamoorthy, A., & Verguts, T. (2012). Word and deed: A computational model of instruction following. Brain Research, 1439, 54–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.12.025
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R. (2013a). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: Conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? Plos One, 8(11): e82320. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082320
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R. (2013b). The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 119–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.10.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt, J. R., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2020). An episodic model of task switching effects: Erasing the homunculus from memory. Journal of Cognition. 3(1): 22, pp. 1–38. DOI: 10.5334/joc.97
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 196–218. DOI: 10.1037/a0038328
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Item-Specificity and Intention in Episodic Memory

Abstract

Paradigm

My account