ArticleJournal of cognition2026
The Touching Difference: Evidence for Stimulus-Response Binding Effects in Tactile Detection and Localization Performance but Not in Their Visual Counterparts.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to action control theories, responding to stimuli leads to a binding of stimulus and response features into a common representation referred to as an event file. If any component of this event file repeats, information is retrieved and affects performance: While full repetition is beneficial, partial repetition leads to cost. These stimulus-response (S-R) binding effects have been found in very many experimental designs; yet, these effects are typically completely absent in visual detection and localization tasks. Recently, however, it has been found that contrary to vision, auditory detection and localization leads to binding effects, thus suggesting modality dependence. In the current study we aimed to extend this debate by comparing the visual with the tactile domain. Participants detected (Experiment 1) or localized (Experiment 2) visual targets of different color and tactile targets of different intensity and rhythm. In both detection and localization, we observed evidence of binding and retrieval in the tactile domain which was completely absent in the visual domain. The results highlight the previously suggested modality dependence for binding approaches in action control.
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.