指导速度和准确性会影响装订。

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Silvia Selimi, Birte Moeller
{"title":"指导速度和准确性会影响装订。","authors":"Silvia Selimi, Birte Moeller","doi":"10.1007/s00426-024-01927-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the past few decades, binding and retrieval mechanisms have gained increased interest in research on human action control. Recent studies show that these mechanisms also play a role in the control of multiple independent actions. Here, two or more successively executed responses seem to be bound to each other so that repeating one of them can retrieve the other, affecting performance in this second response and resulting in so-called response-response binding effects. Binding effects are typically found in the response time data and, somewhat less reliably, also in the error rates. Whether binding effects show in the response times, the error rates, or both, is likely influenced by the current speed-accuracy settings of the participants, with binding effects more likely showing in error rates under a speed setting, while more likely showing in RTs under an accuracy setting. Alternatively, different speed-accuracy settings might also entail changes in executive control, affecting the size of observed binding effects. In this study, we tested these assumptions by comparing binding effects under different speed-accuracy settings that were induced via instructions focusing on speed, accuracy, or both (ambivalent). Binding effects were observed in response times independent of instructions, while in error rates, they only showed under speed or ambivalent instructions. These findings indicate that binding effects can be affected by instructions regarding speed and accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11142972/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Instructed speed and accuracy affect binding.\",\"authors\":\"Silvia Selimi, Birte Moeller\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-024-01927-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the past few decades, binding and retrieval mechanisms have gained increased interest in research on human action control. Recent studies show that these mechanisms also play a role in the control of multiple independent actions. Here, two or more successively executed responses seem to be bound to each other so that repeating one of them can retrieve the other, affecting performance in this second response and resulting in so-called response-response binding effects. Binding effects are typically found in the response time data and, somewhat less reliably, also in the error rates. Whether binding effects show in the response times, the error rates, or both, is likely influenced by the current speed-accuracy settings of the participants, with binding effects more likely showing in error rates under a speed setting, while more likely showing in RTs under an accuracy setting. Alternatively, different speed-accuracy settings might also entail changes in executive control, affecting the size of observed binding effects. In this study, we tested these assumptions by comparing binding effects under different speed-accuracy settings that were induced via instructions focusing on speed, accuracy, or both (ambivalent). Binding effects were observed in response times independent of instructions, while in error rates, they only showed under speed or ambivalent instructions. These findings indicate that binding effects can be affected by instructions regarding speed and accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11142972/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01927-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01927-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去几十年中,结合和检索机制在人类行动控制研究中获得了越来越多的关注。最近的研究表明,这些机制在多个独立动作的控制中也发挥了作用。在这里,两个或多个连续执行的反应似乎是相互绑定的,因此重复其中一个反应可以检索到另一个反应,从而影响第二个反应的表现,产生所谓的反应-反应绑定效应。绑定效应通常出现在响应时间数据中,也出现在错误率中,但可靠性稍差。束缚效应是表现在反应时间、错误率上,还是同时表现在这两个方面,很可能受到参与者当前速度-准确度设置的影响,在速度设置下,束缚效应更可能表现在错误率上,而在准确度设置下,束缚效应更可能表现在反应时间上。另外,不同的速度-准确度设置也可能导致执行控制的变化,从而影响所观察到的绑定效应的大小。在本研究中,我们通过比较不同速度-准确度设置下的绑定效应来验证这些假设,这些速度-准确度设置是通过侧重于速度、准确度或两者(矛盾)的指令来诱导的。在反应时间中观察到了与指令无关的束缚效应,而在错误率中,只有在速度或矛盾指令下才显示出束缚效应。这些研究结果表明,束缚效应会受到速度和准确性指令的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Instructed speed and accuracy affect binding.

Instructed speed and accuracy affect binding.

In the past few decades, binding and retrieval mechanisms have gained increased interest in research on human action control. Recent studies show that these mechanisms also play a role in the control of multiple independent actions. Here, two or more successively executed responses seem to be bound to each other so that repeating one of them can retrieve the other, affecting performance in this second response and resulting in so-called response-response binding effects. Binding effects are typically found in the response time data and, somewhat less reliably, also in the error rates. Whether binding effects show in the response times, the error rates, or both, is likely influenced by the current speed-accuracy settings of the participants, with binding effects more likely showing in error rates under a speed setting, while more likely showing in RTs under an accuracy setting. Alternatively, different speed-accuracy settings might also entail changes in executive control, affecting the size of observed binding effects. In this study, we tested these assumptions by comparing binding effects under different speed-accuracy settings that were induced via instructions focusing on speed, accuracy, or both (ambivalent). Binding effects were observed in response times independent of instructions, while in error rates, they only showed under speed or ambivalent instructions. These findings indicate that binding effects can be affected by instructions regarding speed and accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信