Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions.

Choice reactions to a property of an object stimulus are often faster when the location of a graspable part of the object corresponds with the location of a keypress response than when it does not, a phenomenon called the object-based Simon effect. Experiments 1-3 examined this effect for variants of teapot stimuli that were oriented to the left or right. Whether keypress responses were made with fingers within the same hand or between different hands was also manipulated. Experiment 1 showed that, for judgments of stimulus color and upright-inverted orientation, the Simon effect for intact teapots occurred in the direction of the spout location and was larger for within- than between-hand response modes. In Experiments 2 and 3, teapots with the handle or spout removed showed separate contributions of each component to the Simon effect. In Experiment 4, we clarified a discrepancy between our findings of object-based Simon effects and a previously reported absence of effect with color judgments for door-handle stimuli. We obtained an object-based Simon effect with respect to handle position when the bases of the door handles were centered but not when the handles were centered. The findings that object-based Simon effects occur with color judgments and when responses are fingers on the same hand are in closer agreement with a location coding account than with a grasping affordance account.

[1]  S. Kornblum Response competition and/or inhibition in two-choice reaction time , 1965 .

[2]  J R Simon,et al.  Processing symbolic information from a visual display: interference from an irrelevant directional cue. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

[5]  A. Katz,et al.  Spatial compatibility effects with hemifield presentation in a unimanual two-finger task. , 1981, Canadian journal of psychology.

[6]  J. Miller Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: in search of partial output. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[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.  Compatibility Effects in the Assignment of Symbolic Stimuli to Discrete Finger Responses , 1985 .

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

[11]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Spatial S-R compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions: Effects of irrelevant stimulus location , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings. , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.

[13]  C F Michaels,et al.  S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: evidence of the detection of affordances. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[15]  T. G. Reeve,et al.  Research on Stimulus-Response Compatibility: Toward a Comprehensive Account , 1990 .

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

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

[18]  G. d'Ydewalle,et al.  Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. , 1992, Acta psychologica.

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

[20]  D J Weeks,et al.  Stimulus-response compatability for moving stimuli: perception of affordances or directional coding? , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  B. Hommel The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap , 1993 .

[22]  B. Hommel,et al.  S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  E. Buckolz,et al.  The Simon effect: Evidence of a response processing “functional locus” , 1996 .

[24]  R. Ellis,et al.  On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  R. Ellis,et al.  The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization , 2001 .

[26]  R. Ward,et al.  S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation , 2002 .

[27]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Is Direction Position? Position- and Direction-Based Correspondence Effects in Tasks with Moving Stimuli , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[28]  Edmund Wascher,et al.  Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application , 2006 .

[30]  S. Tipper,et al.  Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  R. Ellis,et al.  The potentiation of two components of the reach-to-grasp action during object categorisation in visual memory. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[32]  Sandro Rubichi,et al.  Spatial coding in two dimensions , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[33]  Edmund Wascher,et al.  Response coding in the Simon task , 2007, Psychological research.

[34]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  An Attentional Mechanism for Selecting Appropriate Actions Afforded by Graspable Objects , 2008, Psychological science.

[35]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus–response compatibility for mixed mappings and tasks with unique responses , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  D. Bub,et al.  Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  R. Proctor,et al.  The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.