Comparing partial repetition costs in two- and four-choice tasks: Evidence for abstract relational codes

Responses are slower in two-choice tasks when either a previous stimulus feature or the previous response repeats than when all features repeat or all features change. Current views of action control posit that such partial repetition costs (PRCs) index the time to update a prior "binding" between a stimulus feature and the response or to resolve processing conflicts between retrieved and current features. However, violating a heuristic that stimulus feature repetitions and changes "signal" repetitions or changes of the previous response, respectively, may also contribute to such costs. To determine whether such relational codes affect performance, we compared PRCs in two- and four-choice tasks. While a stimulus feature repetition signals a response repetition in both tasks, a stimulus feature change signals a specific alternative response only in a two-choice task. Consistent with the signaling hypothesis, we observed similar complete repetition benefits in the two- and four-choice tasks but smaller complete change benefits in the four-choice task. We also investigated whether the smaller complete change benefit in the four-choice task-that is, the signaling effect-varies with the validity of the signal in the previous trial. In all four experiments, we observed a larger signaling effect after trials in which stimulus changes or repetitions corresponded to response changes or repetitions, respectively, than after trials in which stimulus changes did not correspond with response changes. We conclude that signaling contributes to PRCs, which indicates that bindings include relational codes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).