Figure 1
Design and analyses of both experiments. (A) Sequential conditions to probe for feature binding and retrieval. The upper display depicts an exemplary preceding trial (Trial N-1) in which the participant had responded to a target letter that was superimposed on a distractor shape. The lower row showcases examples for all possible condition sequences for the participant’s current response (Trial N). (B) Dependent variables and planned comparisons. Target-response binding is commonly studied by comparing response repetition trials with target repetitions to response repetition trials with target switches. Distractor-response binding is measured as the difference between response repetitions and response switches for distractor repetition trials relative to distractor change trials. The latter analyses can either include target repetition trials (thus allowing for target-distractor bindings) or exclude target repetition trials for a pure measure of distractor-response binding. Crucially, we applied these analyses to assess whether stimulus repetitions would retrieve the continuous, metric feature of response duration.
Figure 2
Main results of Experiment 1. Left plots summarize mean response times (RTs; Panel A), percentages of commission errors (PEs; Panel B), and absolute differences in response durations between successive trials (|ΔRD|; Panel C). Error bars show standard errors of paired differences (SEPD). All variables were analyzed as a function of distractor sequence as well as target sequence and response sequence. Right plots show corresponding binding effects between targets and responses (T-R) as well as between distractors and responses, computed either on the full dataset (D-R) or on a reduced dataset after excluding target repetition trials (D-R’). Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of the individual means (CIM).
Figure 3
Main results of Experiment 2. Left plots summarize mean response times (RTs; Panel A), percentages of commission errors (PEs; Panel B), and absolute differences in response durations between successive trials (|ΔRD|; Panel C). Error bars show standard errors of paired differences (SEPD). All variables were analyzed as a function of distractor sequence, as well as target and response sequence. Right plots show corresponding binding effects between targets and responses (T-R) as well as between distractors and responses, computed either on the full dataset (D-R) or on a reduced dataset after excluding target repetition trials (D-R’). Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of the individual means (CIM).
Table A1
Mean response times (RTs [ms]), percentages of commission errors (PEs [%]), and absolute differences in response durations across successive trials (|ΔRD| [ms]) as a function of all three design factors of Experiment 1.
| DIRECT OFFSET | DELAYED OFFSET | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TARGET REPETITION | TARGET SWITCH | TARGET SWITCH | TARGET REPETITION | TARGET SWITCH | TARGET SWITCH | ||
| DV | DISTRACTOR SEQUENCE | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE SWITCH | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE SWITCH |
| RT | Repetition | 438.99 | 510.13 | 528.89 | 448.28 | 547.91 | 548.55 |
| Switch | 456.86 | 524.76 | 518.60 | 474.58 | 546.35 | 536.27 | |
| PE | Repetition | 0.93 | 10.17 | 7.68 | 0.63 | 6.81 | 6.51 |
| Switch | 2.10 | 11.02 | 4.69 | 1.78 | 9.02 | 4.06 | |
| |ΔRD| | Repetition | 16.87 | 17.47 | 24.43 | 17.77 | 17.87 | 23.64 |
| Switch | 17.03 | 18.15 | 25.16 | 17.04 | 18.05 | 24.33 | |
Table A2
Omnibus analyses of variances (ANOVAs) for each dependent variable (DV) of Experiment 1. Mean response times (RTs), percentages of commission errors (PEs), and absolute differences in response durations across successive trials (|ΔRD|) as a function of all three design factors of Experiment 1. The factors distractor type (direct offset vs. delayed offset) and distractor sequence (repetition vs. switch) come with two levels each, whereas the factor response sequence codes the three levels of all possible target and response sequences (i.e., target repetition with response repetition, target switch with response repetition, and target switch with response switch). ANOVA effects for which the sphericity assumption was violated were corrected by the Greenhouse-Geisser method, and we provide the corresponding ɛ estimate for each of these tests.
| DV | SOURCE | F | P | ηP2 | ɛ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RT | Distractor Type (DT) | 43.50 | <.001 | 0.54 | |
| Distractor Sequence (DS) | 13.54 | <.001 | 0.27 | ||
| Response Sequence (RS) | 109.51 | <.001 | 0.75 | .761 | |
| DT * DS | 0.88 | .355 | 0.02 | ||
| DT * RS | 5.71 | .005 | 0.13 | ||
| DS * RS | 34.15 | <.001 | 0.48 | .853 | |
| DT * DS * RS | 3.99 | .039 | 0.10 | .688 | |
| PE | Distractor Type (DT) | 9.32 | .004 | 0.20 | |
| Distractor Sequence (DS) | 0.00 | .973 | 0.00 | ||
| Response Sequence (RS) | 71.79 | <.001 | 0.66 | .754 | |
| DT * DS | 1.09 | .303 | 0.03 | ||
| DT * RS | 4.62 | .021 | 0.11 | .786 | |
| DS * RS | 18.81 | <.001 | 0.34 | .660 | |
| DT * DS * RS | 0.39 | .641 | 0.01 | .841 | |
| |ΔRD| | Distractor Type (DT) | 0.07 | .797 | 0.00 | |
| Distractor Sequence (DS) | 0.91 | .346 | 0.02 | ||
| Response Sequence (RS) | 49.44 | <.001 | 0.57 | .606 | |
| DT * DS | 0.94 | .337 | 0.02 | ||
| DT * RS | 2.02 | .140 | 0.05 | ||
| DS * RS | 1.23 | .294 | 0.03 | .813 | |
| DT * DS * RS | 0.26 | .770 | 0.01 |
Table A3
Binding and retrieval effects for response times (RT [ms]), percentages of commission errors (PE [%]), and absolute differences in response durations across successive trials (|ΔRD| [ms]) for Experiment 1. Separate binding and retrieval effects were computed for targets and responses (T-R) as well as for distractors and responses, with the latter being computed on the entire dataset first (D-R) and also on a reduced dataset after excluding target repetition trials (D-R’).
| DIRECT OFFSET | DELAYED OFFSET | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DV | STATISTIC | T-R | D-R | D-R’ | T-R | D-R | D-R’ |
| RT | Mean | 69.83 | 26.54 | 24.92 | 85.39 | 24.66 | 10.73 |
| SEM | 6.44 | 3.52 | 4.58 | 8.51 | 4.61 | 7.86 | |
| dz | 1.76 | 1.22 | 0.88 | 1.63 | 0.87 | 0.22 | |
| PE | Mean | 8.08 | 4.00 | 3.84 | 7.70 | 4.14 | 4.67 |
| SEM | 0.92 | 1.11 | 1.50 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 1.20 | |
| dz | 1.42 | 0.59 | 0.42 | 1.44 | 0.77 | 0.63 | |
| |ΔRD| | Mean | 1.07 | –0.30 | –0.04 | 0.35 | –0.96 | –0.50 |
| SEM | 0.38 | 0.61 | 0.94 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.72 | |
| dz | 0.46 | –0.08 | –0.01 | 0.09 | –0.27 | –0.11 | |
Table A4
Mean response times (RTs [ms]), percentages of commission errors (PEs [%]), and absolute differences in response durations across successive trials (|ΔRD| [ms]) as a function of all three design factors of Experiment 2.
| DIRECT OFFSET | DELAYED OFFSET | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TARGET REPETITION | TARGET SWITCH | TARGET SWITCH | TARGET REPETITION | TARGET SWITCH | TARGET SWITCH | ||
| DV | DISTRACTOR SEQUENCE | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE SWITCH | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE REPETITION | RESPONSE SWITCH |
| RT | Repetition | 439.53 | 514.97 | 535.48 | 441.01 | 522.49 | 540.21 |
| Switch | 462.35 | 522.17 | 520.92 | 466.88 | 533.12 | 528.70 | |
| PE | Repetition | 0.98 | 7.56 | 7.69 | 0.38 | 7.96 | 7.39 |
| Switch | 1.70 | 8.75 | 4.89 | 1.32 | 7.77 | 4.50 | |
| |ΔRD| | Repetition | 16.21 | 17.50 | 24.65 | 16.13 | 17.36 | 23.90 |
| Switch | 17.03 | 16.93 | 24.13 | 17.20 | 17.38 | 24.20 | |
Table A5
Omnibus analyses of variances (ANOVAs) for each dependent variable (DV) of Experiment 2. Mean response times (RTs), percentages of commission errors (PEs), and absolute differences in response durations across successive trials (|ΔRD|) as a function of all three design factors of Experiment 2. The factors distractor type (direct offset vs. delayed offset) and distractor sequence (repetition vs. switch) come with two levels each, whereas the factor response sequence codes the three levels of all possible target and response sequences (i.e., target repetition with response repetition, target switch with response repetition, and target switch with response switch). ANOVA effects for which the sphericity assumption was violated were corrected by the Greenhouse-Geisser method, and we provide the corresponding ɛ estimate for each of these tests.
| DV | SOURCE | F | P | ηP2 | ɛ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RT | Distractor Type (DT) | 3.59 | .065 | 0.08 | |
| Distractor Sequence (DS) | 24.49 | <.001 | 0.38 | ||
| Response Sequence (RS) | 131.84 | <.001 | 0.77 | ||
| DT * DS | 1.13 | .294 | 0.03 | ||
| DT * RS | 1.53 | .223 | 0.04 | ||
| DS * RS | 36.61 | <.001 | 0.48 | ||
| DT * DS * RS | 0.00 | .998 | 0.00 | ||
| PE | Distractor Type (DT) | 1.34 | .254 | 0.03 | |
| Distractor Sequence (DS) | 6.23 | .017 | 0.13 | ||
| Response Sequence (RS) | 58.77 | <.001 | 0.60 | ||
| DT * DS | 0.57 | .455 | 0.01 | ||
| DT * RS | 0.05 | .915 | 0.00 | .757 | |
| DS * RS | 27.01 | <.001 | 0.40 | ||
| DT * DS * RS | 0.87 | .401 | 0.02 | .790 | |
| |ΔRD| | Distractor Type (DT) | 0.02 | .885 | 0.00 | |
| Distractor Sequence (DS) | 0.45 | .507 | 0.01 | ||
| Response Sequence (RS) | 57.47 | <.001 | 0.59 | .573 | |
| DT * DS | 1.99 | .166 | 0.05 | ||
| DT * RS | 0.40 | .671 | 0.01 | ||
| DS * RS | 3.30 | .042 | 0.08 | ||
| DT * DS * RS | 0.14 | .867 | 0.00 |
Table A6
Binding and retrieval effects for response times (RT [ms]), percentages of commission errors (PE [%]), and absolute differences in response durations across successive trials (|ΔRD| [ms]) for Experiment 2. Separate binding and retrieval effects were computed for targets and responses (T-R) as well as for distractors and responses, with the latter being computed on the entire dataset first (D-R) and also on a reduced dataset after excluding target repetition trials (D-R’).
| DIRECT OFFSET | DELAYED OFFSET | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DV | STATISTIC | T-R | D-R | D-R’ | T-R | D-R | D-R’ |
| RT | Mean | 63.03 | 29.57 | 21.76 | 78.46 | 29.76 | 22.14 |
| SEM | 4.76 | 5.69 | 6.57 | 5.07 | 4.48 | 6.31 | |
| dz | 2.07 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 2.42 | 1.04 | 0.55 | |
| PE | Mean | 6.75 | 3.76 | 3.99 | 7.08 | 3.26 | 2.70 |
| SEM | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.96 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.95 | |
| dz | 1.40 | 0.98 | 0.65 | 1.61 | 0.68 | 0.44 | |
| |ΔRD| | Mean | 0.05 | 0.64 | –0.05 | 1.26 | 0.23 | –0.29 |
| SEM | 0.37 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.41 | 0.66 | 0.80 | |
| dz | 0.02 | 0.16 | –0.01 | 0.48 | 0.06 | –0.06 | |