Figure 1
Hypothetical effects of feature relation and location relation.
Note. In a detection task in which the response always repeats, a binding effect can be derived from a benefit (in reaction times in ms and/or in error rates in %) of a) (non-spatial) feature repetition or b) location repetition: Repeating the feature/location retrieves the previous response. Such a non-spatial feature repetition benefit has been found in auditory detection (Mondor & Leboe, 2008; Schöpper & Frings, 2023). However, an c) interaction of non-spatial feature relation and location relation marked by partial repetition costs irrespective of repeating the response is also theoretically possible. In a localization task, a binding pattern is derived from the interaction of non-spatial feature relation and location relation as well due to the location being confounded with the response. Such a pattern has been observed in auditory localization (Dyson, 2010; Schöpper et al., subm.) but in the visual domain only under quite specific setups (Schöpper et al., 2022a, 2024). Crucially, in visual detection (e.g., Huffman et al., 2018; Kwak & Egeth, 1992; Schöpper & Frings, 2023, 2024; Schöpper et al., 2020) and localization (e.g., Hilchey et al., 2018; Huffman et al., 2018; Schöpper & Frings, 2022, 2024; Schöpper et al., 2022a, 2024; Taylor & Donelly, 2002) performance these binding patterns are typically completely absent and d) IOR is observed – a location repetition cost.
Figure 2
Trial sequences as used in the experiment.
Note. Trial sequences are not drawn-to-scale. The upper row depicts the visual task, whereas the lower row depicts the tactile task. In both, the location and the non-spatial identity varies (LCFC). Here, for the visual task, the target changes from red to blue, whereas for the tactile task, the target changes from a constant vibration with high intensity to a rhythmic vibration with low intensity.
Figure 3
Interaction of feature relation and location relation in reaction times and error rates of the detection tasks.
Note. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.
Figure 4
Interaction of feature relation and location relation in reaction times and error rates of the localization tasks.
Note. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.
Figure A1
Calculated effects of non-spatial feature repetition, location repetition costs (IOR), and the interaction of location relation and non-spatial feature relation separate for each percentile and each task.
Note. The differential values were calculated as reported in the main text. The respective differential value in ms is depicted on the y-axis and the reaction time in ms is depicted on the x-axis as a function of percentile (see also, e.g., De Jong et al., 1994; Ridderinkhof, 2002) and task. The white (visual targets) and black (tactile targets) dots represent the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile for each function separate for each task (dotted black line: visual detection, dashed grey line: tactile detection, solid black line: visual localization, solid grey line: tactile localization). Error bars represent standard error of each mean of each averaged percentile for the effect of interest (y-axis) and overall response speed (x-axis).