ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020
Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feature binding and error commission.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Perception and action as viewed from the Theory of Event Coding: a multi-lab replication and effect size estimation of common experimental designs.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Predictability reduces event file retrieval.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Unsigned surprise but not reward magnitude modulates the integration of motor elements during actions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A mighty tool not only in perception: Figure-ground mechanisms control binding and retrieval alike.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- What Belongs Together Retrieves Together - The Role of Perceptual Grouping in Stimulus-Response Binding and Retrieval.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- Social Action Effects: Representing Predicted Partner Responses in Social Interactions.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Review
- Beyond Left and Right: Binding and Retrieval of Spatial and Temporal Features of Planned Actions.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- Episodic Binding and Retrieval in Sequences of Discrete Movements - Evidence from Grasping Actions.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- The Control of Event-File Management.Journal of cognition · 2022Review
- Binding of Features and Responses in Inhibition of Return: The Effects of Task Demand.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- On the relevance of task instructions for the influence of action on perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor feature binding processes and representations.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Environment-Related and Body-Related Components of the Minimal Self.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- How Action Shapes Body Ownership Momentarily and Throughout the Lifespan.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.