Dataset for: Can S-R Binding Be Anticipated? – Temporal Expectancy does not Influence Feature Integration

Dataset for: Schmalbrock, P., & Frings, C. (2022). Temporal expectancy modulates stimulus–response integration. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02361-7 We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event. If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. Yet the role of foreperiods has so far not been investigated in action control. Thus, we investigated the influence of foreperiod on the integration of action-perception features. Participants worked through a standard distractor–response binding paradigm where two consecutive responses are made towards target letters while distractor letters are present. Responses and/or distractors can repeat or change from first to second display, leading to partial repetition costs when only some features repeat or repetition benefits when all features repeat (the difference constituting distractor–response binding). To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we also introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. We observed that distractor–response binding increased with increasing foreperiod duration, and speculate that this was driven by an increase in motor readiness induced by temporal expectancy. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the German Research Council (DFG) under Grant FR2133/15-1 to Dr. Frings. unknown