According to action control theories, responding to a stimulus leads to the binding of response and stimulus features into a common representation, that is, an event file. Repeating any component of an event file retrieves all previously bound information, leading to performance costs for partial repetitions measured in so-called binding effects. Although otherwise robust and stable, binding effects are typically completely absent in “localization tasks,” in which participants localize targets with spatially compatible responses. Yet, it is possible to observe binding effects in such when location features have to be translated into response features. We hypothesized that this modulation of binding effects is reflected in task involvement of the dorsolateral pFC (DLPFC). Participants localized targets with either direct (i.e., spatially compatible key) or translated (i.e., diagonally opposite to the spatially compatible key) responses. We measured DLPFC activity with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. On the behavioral level, we observed binding effects in the translated response condition, but not in the direct response condition. Importantly, prefrontal activity was also higher in the translated mapping condition. In addition, we found some evidence for the strength of the difference in binding effects in behavioral data being correlated with the corresponding effects in prefrontal activity. This suggests that activity in the DLPFC reflects the amount of executive control needed for translating location features into responses. More generally, binding effects seem to emerge only when the task at hand involves DLPFC recruitment.

Efficient response selection is essential to flexible, goal-directed behavior. Prominent theoretical frameworks such as the Theory of Event Coding and Binding and Retrieval in Action Control have provided insights regarding the dynamics of perception–action integration processes. According to Theory of Event Coding and Binding and Retrieval in Action Control, encoded representations of stimulus–response bindings influence later retrieval processes of these bindings. However, this concept still lacks conclusive empirical evidence. In the current study, we applied representational decoding to EEG data. On the behavioral level, the findings replicated binding effects that have been established in previous studies: The task performance was impaired when an event file had to be reconfigured. The EEG-decoding results showed that retrieval processes of stimulus–response bindings could be decoded using the representational content developed after the initial establishment of these stimulus–response bindings. We showed that stimulus-related properties became immediately reactivated when re-encountering the respective stimulus–response association. These reactivations were temporally stable. In contrast, representations of stimulus–response mappings revealed a transient pattern of activity and could not successfully be decoded directly after stimulus–response binding. Information detailing the bindings between stimuli and responses were also retrieved, but only after having been loaded into a memory system. The current study supports the notion that stimulus–response integration and memory processes are intertwined at multiple levels.

The ability to inhibit responses is central for situational behavior. However, the mechanisms how sensory information is used to inform inhibitory control processes are incompletely understood. In the current study, we examined neurophysiological processes of perception–action integration in response inhibition using the theory of event coding as a conceptual framework. Based on theoretical considerations, we focused on theta and alpha band activity in close connection to the functional neuroanatomical level using EEG beamforming. Moreover, we performed a network-based analysis of theta and alpha band activity. We show a seesaw-like relationship between medial and superior frontal cortex theta band activity and frontoparietal cortex alpha band activity during perception–action integration in response inhibition, depending on the necessity to reconfigure perception–action associations. When perception–action integration was more demanding, because perception–action associations (bindings) have to be reconfigured, there was an increase of theta and a decrease of alpha band activity. Vice versa, when there was no need to reconfigure perception–action bindings, theta band activity was low and alpha band activity was high. However, theta band processes seem to be most important for perception–action integration in response inhibition, because only the sensor-level network organization of theta band activity showed variations depending on the necessity to reconfigure perception–action associations. When no reconfiguration was necessary, the network architecture was more small-world-like, likely enabling efficient processing. When reconfigurations were necessary, the network organization becomes more random. These differences were particularly strong for fractions of the neurophysiological signal supposed to reflect response selection processes.