Stimulus-Response Compatibility as a Function of Stimulus Code and Response Modality

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 1201-1217

  Wang, Huifang ^a,b   Proctor, Robert W ^a,c  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTEL NETWORKS   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030492185     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1201     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alluisi, E. A., & Muller, P. F. (1958). Verbal and motor responses to seven symbolic visual codes: A study in S-R compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 247-254.
2. Brainard, R. W., Irby, T. S., Fitts, P. M., & Alluisi, E. A. (1962). Some variables influencing the rate of gain of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 105-110.
3. Coles, M. G. H., De Jong, R., Gehring, W. J., & Gratton, G. (1991). Continuous versus discrete information processing: Evidence from movement-related potentials. In C. H. M. Brunia, G. Mulder, & M. N. Verbaten (Eds.), Event-related brain research (EEG Suppl. 42, pp. 260-269). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
4. Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801-809.
5. Eimer, M., Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1995). S-R compatibility and response selection. Acta Psychologica, 90, 301-313.
6. Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381-391.
7. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
8. Greenwald, A. G. (1970a). A choice reaction time test of ideomo-tor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20-25.
9. Greenwald, A. G. (1970b). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
10. Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743-777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
11. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
12. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855-875.
13. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location dimension as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 286-298.
14. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). The influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R association strength and relative timing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15. Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231-240.
16. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 435-448.
17. O'Leary, M. J., & Barber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830-844.
18. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multi-processor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 826-842.
19. Proctor, R. W., Dutta, A., Kelly, P., & Weeks, D. J. (1994). Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 42-47.
20. Proctor, R. W., Lu, C.-H., Wang, H., & Dutta, A. (1995). Activation of response codes by relevant and irrelevant information. Acta Psychologica, 90, 275-286.
21. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 623-639.
22. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
23. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1991). The prevalence of salient-features coding in choice-reaction tasks. In J. Requin & G. E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 17-26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.
24. Proctor, R. W., Van Zandt, T., Lu, C.-H., & Weeks, D. J. (1993). Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or directional coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 81-91.
25. Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 541-553.
26. Shor, R. E. (1970). The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols, Acta Psychologica, 32, 346-365.
27. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433-435.
28. Stoffels, E.-J. (1996). Inhibition of concurrent processes in letter and orientation discriminations. Acta Psychologica, 91, 153-173.
29. Sugg, M. J., & McDonald, J. E. (1994). Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 647-675.
30. Teichner, W. H., & Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75-98.
31. Van Duren, L., & Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica, 69, 83-94.
32. Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304-319.
33. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
34. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.
35. Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance. New York: HarperCollins.
36. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output: Testing a model of complex human performance. Human Factors, 25, 227-248.
37. Wickens, C. D., Vidulich, M., & Sandry-Garza, D. (1984). Principles of S-C-R compatibility with spatial and verbal tasks: The role of display-control location and voice-interactive display-control interfacing. Human Factors, 26, 533-543.