Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects?

Responding to a stimulus is faster and more accurate when stimulus location and response location spatially correspond than when they do not correspond (stimulus–response compatibility). In five experiments this standard compatibility effect is examined when using a T-shaped lever as a tool. Handling the lever allowed distinguishing body-related action effects (e.g., the tactile feedback from the moving finger) from external action effects (e.g., reaching at the stimulus with the lever's end-point). Results showed that the spatial relationship between stimulus and the direction of the hand movement (S-R compatibility) as well as the relationship between the stimulus and the functional end-points of the tool (S-E compatibility) determine performance. More precisely, responses were fast and less error prone when both kinds of compatibility did correspond than when they did not correspond.

[1]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Spatial Compatibility Effects With Tool Use , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[2]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[3]  A Pollatsek,et al.  On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  The Simon Effect With Wheel-Rotation Responses , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[5]  Motonori Yamaguchi,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[6]  Y. Guiard,et al.  The lateral coding of rotations: a study of the simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. , 1983, Journal of motor behavior.

[7]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[8]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  R. Proctor,et al.  Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  A. Hedge,et al.  The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. , 1975, Acta psychologica.

[11]  The influence of relevance and belonging , 1935 .

[12]  D. Spalding.  The Principles of Psychology , 1873, Nature.

[13]  A Farnè,et al.  Dynamic size‐change of hand peripersonal space following tool use , 2000, Neuroreport.

[14]  L. Shaffer.  CHOICE REACTION WITH VARIABLE S-R MAPPING. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility with wheel-rotation responses: Will an incompatible response coding be used when a compatible coding is possible? , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[17]  B. Hommel,et al.  Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning , 2004, Psychological research.

[18]  W. Prinz,et al.  Programming tool-use actions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  B. Hommel.  Inverting the Simon effect intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. , 1993 .

[20]  R. L. Deininger,et al.  S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  Yvonne Lippa,et al.  A Referential coding Explanation for Compatibility Effects of Physically Orthogonal Stimulus and Response Dimensions , 1996 .

[22]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework of perception and action , 2001 .

[23]  L. G. Gawryszewski,et al.  What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? , 1986 .

[24]  Claire F. Michaels,et al.  An ecological approach to stimulus-response compatibility , 1997 .

[25]  M. Ziessler,et al.  Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects , 2004, Psychological research.

[26]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[27]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[28]  Shaffer Lh.  CHOICE REACTION WITH VARIABLE S-R MAPPING. , 1965 .

[29]  B. Kerr.  Decisions about movement direction and extent , 1976 .