Figure 1
Example Trial for Each Block Applicable to All Four Experiments.
Note: Upon presentation of Stimulus A (here: ‘X’ in the spatial and ‘W’ in the temporal condition), the corresponding Action A (see below) was to be planned (for later execution). As soon as Stimulus B (here: green square in the spatial and yellow square in the temporal condition) appeared, the corresponding Action B was to be carried out, followed immediately by execution of the planned Action A. The figure shows a no-overlap trial. The stimulus-response mapping was as follows. Vertical condition. Participants responded using their index and ring fingers of one hand and their thumb and middle finger of the other hand. In Experiments 1 to 3, a letter stimulus indicated a left-hand response, ‘X’ with the top (R key) and ‘O’ with the bottom (C key) key. Color stimuli indicated a right-hand response with ‘red’ signaling a top (U key) and ‘green’ a bottom (N key) keypress. In Experiment 4, a letter stimulus indicated a top keypress, ‘X’ a left-hand response (R key) and ‘O’ a right-hand response (U key). Color stimuli indicate a bottom keypress with ‘red’ signaling a left (C key) and ‘green’ a right (N key) keypress. Temporal condition. Participants responded using their index fingers. In Experiments 1 to 3, a letter stimulus indicated a left-hand response (D key), ‘W’ a short and ‘U’ a long keypress. Color stimuli indicated a right-hand response (J key) with ‘blue’ signaling a short and ‘yellow’ a long keypress. In Experiment 4, a letter stimulus indicated a short keypress, ‘W’ a left-hand response (D key) and ‘U’ a right-hand response (J key). Color stimuli indicated a long keypress with ‘blue’ signaling a left (D key) and ‘green’ a right (J key) keypress.
Figure 2
Action Features Studied by Stoet and Hommel (1999, Experiment 2) and the Present Four Experiments.
Note: Both conditions in each experiment comprised a horizontal (left/right) feature. Conditions differed regarding the second feature type, that is, either vertical (top/bottom) or temporal (short/long). The illustrations show examples of no-overlap versus partial-overlap trials. Lines depict proposed feature bindings. The right columns denote the degree of uncertainty about features needed for the first required Action B, and whether partial overlap effects in the vertical (temporal) condition were observed. Negative values mean costs, positive values mean benefits of feature overlap. Confidence intervals of the paired differences are given in square brackets (Pfister & Janczyk 2013).
Table 1
Means (Standard Deviations) of All Dependent Measures by Condition and Experiment.
| DEPENDENT MEASURE | VERTICAL CONDITION | TEMPORAL CONDITION | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OVERLAP | NO OVERLAP | OVERLAP | NO OVERLAP | |
| Experiment 1 (n = 50) | ||||
| Hand Alternation | ||||
| BIS | –0.49 (1.27) | –0.75 (1.29) | 0.65 (1.06) | 0.58 (1.35) |
| RT | 658 (136) | 678 (149) | 597 (131) | 609 (127) |
| ER | 5.9 (4.4) | 5.3 (4.8) | 4.7 (5.1) | 4.7 (5.2) |
| Experiment 2 (n = 70) | ||||
| Hand Alternation | ||||
| BIS | –0.82 (1.24) | –0.03 (1.13) | 0.25 (1.29) | 0.60 (1.28) |
| RT | 771 (261) | 755 (274) | 704 (212) | 709 (231) |
| ER | 12.6 (8.9) | 10.8 (8.4) | 8.9 (5.8) | 7.4 (6.3) |
| Experiment 3 (n = 50) | ||||
| Hand Alternation | ||||
| BIS | –0.69 (1.16) | 0.17 (1.33) | 0.00 (1.30) | 0.52 (1.12) |
| RT | 876 (265) | 820 (233) | 848 (349) | 844 (320) |
| ER | 11.8 (8.5) | 10.7 (8.9) | 10.7 (11.1) | 7.2 (8.6) |
| Hand Repetition | ||||
| RT | 636 (116) | 785 (230) | 697 (182) | 830 (277) |
| ER | 1.4 (2.6) | 10.7 (11.9) | 3.5 (5.1) | 8.3 (7.3) |
| Experiment 4 (n = 40) | ||||
| Hand Alternation | ||||
| BIS | –0.19 (1.16) | 0.31 (1.13) | 0.20 (1.12) | –0.32 (0.97) |
| RT | 602 (119) | 599 (122) | 591 (126) | 590 (139) |
| ER | 7.2 (7.7) | 5.5 (5.0) | 6.6 (7.3) | 9.3 (7.8) |
[i] Note: Mean values with standard deviations in parentheses. Balanced integration scores (BIS, Liesefeld & Janczyk 2019) are the combination of reaction times (RTs) and error rates (ERs) in hand alternation trials per feature overlap condition. In Experiments 1, 2 and 4, there were hand alternation trials only. To increase feature uncertainty regarding the features left and right there were also hand repetition trials in Experiment 3. Yet, for the sake of comparability with the other experiments, only hand alternations trials were analyzed in detail. The higher the BIS, the better the performance.
Figure 3
Partial Overlap Costs (Partial-Overlap – No-Overlap) Across the Four Experiments.
Note. Negative values denote partial overlap costs, positive values denote benefits (Note the reversed y-axis). In the relevant trials of Experiments 1 to 3, Actions A and B could partly overlap with respect to vertical or temporal but not to horizontal features. These experiments differ regarding the uncertainty of the horizontal Feature B. In Experiment 4, action files could partly overlap with respect to horizontal features but not to (the certain) vertical or temporal features. Error bars represent confidence intervals of the paired differences (see Pfister & Janczyk 2013).