The Relation Between Learning and Stimulus–Response Binding.
Perception and action rely on integrating or binding different features of stimuli and responses. Such bindings are short-lived, but they can be retrieved for a limited amount of time if any of their features is reactivated. This is particularly true for stimulus–response bindings, allowing for flex...
| Published in: | Psychological Review Vol. 131; no. 5; pp. 1290 - 1297 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
American Psychological Association
Oct2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=180432455&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 180432455 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0033295X PYV jtl: Psychological Review issn: 0033295X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2024 vid: 131 iid: 5 pid: 34 pub: American Psychological Association artinfo: ui: 180432455 10.1037/rev0000449 ppf: 1290 ppct: 7 formats: tig: atl: The Relation Between Learning and Stimulus–Response Binding. aug: au: Frings, Christian Foerster, Anna Moeller, Birte Pastötter, Bernhard Pfister, Roland affil: Department of Psychology, University of Trier Institute for Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, University of Trier su: Failure (Psychology) Memory Learning Computer programming education Stimulus & response (Psychology) sug: subj: Failure (Psychology) Memory Learning Custom Computer Programming Services Computer systems design and related services (except video game design and development) Other Computer Related Services Computer programming education Stimulus & response (Psychology) keyword: event coding learning memory S–R binding event coding learning memory S–R binding ab: Perception and action rely on integrating or binding different features of stimuli and responses. Such bindings are short-lived, but they can be retrieved for a limited amount of time if any of their features is reactivated. This is particularly true for stimulus–response bindings, allowing for flexible recycling of previous action plans. A relation to learning of stimulus–response associations suggests itself, and previous accounts have proposed binding as an initial step of forging associations in long-term memory. The evidence for this claim is surprisingly mixed, however. Here we propose a framework that explains previous failures to detect meaningful relations of binding and learning by highlighting the joint contribution of three variables: (a) decay, (b) the number of repetitions, and (c) the time elapsing between repetitions. Accounting for the interplay of these variables provides a promising blueprint for innovative experimental designs that bridge the gap between immediate bindings on the one hand and lasting associations in memory on the other hand. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|