@article{FoersterMoellerFringsetal.2023,
  author    = {Foerster, Anna and Moeller, Birte and Frings, Christian and Pfister, Roland},
  title     = {What is left after an error? Towards a comprehensive account of goal-based binding and retrieval},
  series = {Attention, Perception, \& Psychophysics},
  volume    = {85},
  journal   = {Attention, Perception, \& Psychophysics},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.3758/s13414-022-02609-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324851},
  pages     = {120-139},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The cognitive system readily detects and corrects erroneous actions by establishing episodic bindings between representations of the acted upon stimuli and the intended correct response. If these stimuli are encountered again, they trigger the retrieval of the correct response. Thus, binding and retrieval efficiently pave the way for future success. The current study set out to define the role of the erroneous response itself and explicit feedback for the error during these processes of goal-based binding and retrieval. Two experiments showed robust and similar binding and retrieval effects with and without feedback and pointed towards sustained activation of the unbound, erroneous response. The third experiment confirmed that the erroneous response is more readily available than a neutral alternative. Together, the results demonstrate that episodic binding biases future actions toward success, guided primarily through internal feedback processes, while the erroneous response still leaves detectable traces in human action control.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MockeWellerFringsetal.2020,
  author    = {Mocke, Viola and Weller, Lisa and Frings, Christian and Rothermund, Klaus and Kunde, Wilfried},
  title     = {Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning},
  series = {Attention, Perception, \& Psychophysics},
  volume    = {82},
  journal   = {Attention, Perception, \& Psychophysics},
  issn      = {1943-3921},
  doi       = {10.3758/s13414-020-02123-x},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-231906},
  pages     = {3811-3831},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Action planning can be construed as the temporary binding of features of perceptual action effects. While previous research demonstrated binding for task-relevant, body-related effect features, the role of task-irrelevant or environment-related effect features in action planning is less clear. Here, we studied whether task-relevance or body-relatedness determines feature binding in action planning. Participants planned an action A, but before executing it initiated an intermediate action B. Each action relied on a body-related effect feature (index vs. middle finger movement) and an environment-related effect feature (cursor movement towards vs. away from a reference object). In Experiments 1 and 2, both effects were task-relevant. Performance in action B suffered from partial feature overlap with action A compared to full feature repetition or alternation, which is in line with binding of both features while planning action A. Importantly, this cost disappeared when all features were available but only body-related features were task-relevant (Experiment 3). When only the environment-related effect of action A was known in advance, action B benefitted when it aimed at the same (vs. a different) environment-related effect (Experiment 4). Consequently, the present results support the idea that task relevance determines whether binding of body-related and environment-related effect features takes place while the pre-activation of environment-related features without binding them primes feature-overlapping actions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PfisterFringsMoeller2019,
  author    = {Pfister, Roland and Frings, Christian and Moeller, Birte},
  title     = {The Role of Congruency for Distractor-Response Binding: A Caveat},
  series = {Advances in Cognitive Psychologe},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Advances in Cognitive Psychologe},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {10.5709/acp-0262-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200265},
  pages     = {127-132},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Responding in the presence of stimuli leads to an integration of stimulus features and response features into event fles, which can later be retrieved to assist action control. This integration mechanism is not limited to target stimuli, but can also include distractors (distractor-response binding). A recurring research question is which factors determine whether or not distractors are integrated. One suggested candidate factor is target-distractor congruency: Distractor-response binding effects were reported to be stronger for congruent than for incongruent target-distractor pairs. Here, we discuss a general problem with including the factor of congruency in typical analyses used to study distractor-based binding effects. Integrating this factor leads to a confound that may explain any differences between distractor-response binding effects of congruent and incongruent distractors with a simple congruency effect. Simulation data confrmed this argument. We propose to interpret previous data cautiously and discuss potential avenues to circumvent this problem in the future.},
  language  = {en}
}