ArticleScientific reports2022
Stimulus decay functions in action control.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The representational nature of action-effect relations: A memory process dissociation approach.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Memorization Modulates the Lifespan of Event Files.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Bindings for Action: Bridging the Gap Between Theories of Procedural Working Memory and Action Control Research.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- The role of compatibility in long-term action-effect binding and effect memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Binding a stimulus after, but not before, response execution: examining the temporal binding window of event files.Psychological research · 2025Article
- As Time Goes By: Event File Decay Does Not Unleash Inhibition of Return.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Guess what? Only correct choices forge immediate stimulus-response bindings in guessing scenarios.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
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
When facing particular combinations of stimuli and responses, people create temporary event-files integrating the corresponding stimulus and response features. Subsequent repetition of one or more of these features retrieves the entire event-file, which impairs performance if not all features are repeated (partial-repetition costs). In the literature, different decay functions have been reported presumably dependent on the type of feature that is repeated (e.g. target vs. distractor features). Here, we use a variant of the S1R1-S2R2 and distractor-response binding task and analyze for the first time target-based and distractor-based event-file decay functions within the same task and sample. While we found evidence for decay functions and also stronger retrieval due to target than distractor repetitions, slopes of the decay functions were comparable suggesting that the decay process itself is equal irrespective of the type of stimulus feature that is repeated. Our study thereby confirms overarching approaches that summarize paradigm specific findings with the same set of core processes.
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.