Bound to a spider without its web: Task-type modulates the retrieval of affective information in subsequent responses

Abstract

Action control theories assume that upon responding to a stimulus response and stimulus features are integrated into a short episodic memory trace; repeating any component spurs on retrieval, affecting subsequent performance. The resulting so-called "binding effects" are reliably observed in discrimination tasks. In contrast, in localization performance, these effects are absent and only inhibition of return (IOR) emerges - a location change benefit. Affective information has been found to modulate binding effects; yet a modulation of IOR has led to mixed results, with many finding no influence at all. In the current study, participants discriminated letters (Experiment 1) or localized dots (Experiment 2) on a touchpad in prime-probe sequences. During the prime display two images - one with fruits and one with a spider - appeared, one of which spatially congruent with the to-be-touched area. In the discrimination task, previously touching a spider compared to a fruit slowed down response repetitions. In contrast, the localization task only showed IOR. This suggests that task-irrelevant valence is integrated with the response and affects subsequent responses due to retrieval. However, this is not ubiquitous but depends on task type. The results shed further light on the impact of affective information on actions.

Keywords: Action control; Approach-avoidance; Attention; Inhibition of return; S-R binding; Task dependency.

Fig. 1

An exemplary trial sequence of the discrimination task (Experiment 1) and the localization task (Experiment 2). Participants classified the letter (top) or localized the dot (bottom) via keypress to the left frame (containing a spider in the prime but no picture in the probe). Both sequences depict a trial in which the response repeats with a negative mapping during the prime display (i.e., response repetition with negative mapping, RRN). (Spider image ID: SP052 in Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2011)

Fig. 2

The interaction of response relation and valence mapping of (a) the discrimination task (Experiment 1), and (b) the localization task (Experiment 2). Error bars represent the within-subject standard error after Cousineau (2005) with correction by Morey (2008)

Fig. 3

The calculated differential values of the interactions of response relation and valence mapping on the y-axis in ms and reaction times on the x-axis in ms as a function of percentile (cf. delta plot; De Jong et al., ; Ridderinkhof, 2002) and experiment. See main text for explanations. The black (Discrimination task) and white (Localization task) dots represent the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile for each function. Error bars represent standard error of each mean of each averaged percentile for the effect of interest (y-axis) and overall reaction time (x-axis)