Stimulus–Response Compatibility for Vertically Oriented Stimuli and Horizontally Oriented Responses: Evidence for Spatial Coding

It has previously been shown that, when stimuli positioned above or below a central fixation point (“up” and “down” stimuli) are assigned to left and right responses, the stimulus–response mapping up-left/down-right is more compatible than the mapping up-right/down-left for responses executed by the left hand in the left hemispace, but this relation is reversed for responses executed by the right hand in the right hemispace. In Experiment 1, each hand responded at locations in both hemispaces to dissociate the influence of hand identity from response location, and response location was found to be the determinant of relative compatibility. In Experiment 2 responses were made at the sagittal midline, and an inactive response switch was placed to the left or right to induce coding of the active switch as right or left, respectively. This manipulation of relative location had an effect similar to, although of lesser magnitude than, that produced by physically changing location of the response switch in Experiment 1. It is argued that these results are counter to predictions of a movement-preference account and consistent with the view that spatial coding underlies compatibility effects for orthogonally oriented stimulus and response sets.

[1]  D. Weeks,et al.  Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[3]  R. Proctor,et al.  Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions , 1990 .

[4]  W G Chase,et al.  Semantics in the perception of verticality. , 1971, British journal of psychology.

[5]  Roberto Nicoletti,et al.  Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. , 1990 .

[6]  Addie Dutta,et al.  Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility and the Motor System , 1982, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[8]  T. G. Reeve,et al.  On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  T. G. Reeve,et al.  Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks. , 1986 .

[10]  R. Proctor,et al.  Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice? , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Spatial Coding and Spatio-Anatomical Mapping: Evidence for a Hierarchical Model of Spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1990 .

[12]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility , 1987 .

[13]  C. Umilta,et al.  Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors. , 1984, Acta psychologica.

[14]  C. Michaels S–R Compatibilities Depend on Eccentricity of Responding Hand , 1989 .

[15]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  K Laxar,et al.  Asymmetries in processing the terms "right" and "left". , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  C F Michaels,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: The effects of hand position and posture , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  R. Wallace,et al.  S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  T. G. Reeve,et al.  Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  B Hommel,et al.  The role of attention for the Simon effect , 1993, Psychological research.

[21]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[22]  J. Brebner S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice , 1973 .

[23]  T. G. Reeve,et al.  The Salient-Features Coding Principle for Spatial-and Symbolic-Compatibility Effects , 1990 .

[24]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Spatial S-R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus-response relationship , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.