Hierarchical knowledge influences stimulus-response compatibility effects

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 85-103

  Tlauka, Michael ^a   McKenna, Frank P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEMORY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RESPONSE TIME; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SEMANTICS; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 0034133456     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713755880     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. De Jong, R., Liang. C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
2. Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 837-854.
3. Eimer, M. (1997). The lateralized potential as an on-line measure of automatic response activation in S-R compatibility situations. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 51-73). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
4. Eimer, M., Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1995). S-R compatibility and response selection. Acta Psychologica, 90, 301-313.
5. Fitts, P.M., & Deininger, R.L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492.
6. Fitts, P.M., & Seeger, C.M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
7. Heister, G., Schroeder-Heister, P., & Ehrenstein, W.H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
8. Hirtle, S.C., & Jonides, J. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory & Cognition, 13, 208-217.
9. Hirtle, S.C., & Mascolo, M.F. (1986). Effect of semantic clustering on the memory of spatial locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 182-189.
10. Holding, C.S. (1992). Clusters and reference points in cognitive representations of the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 45-55.
11. Holding, C.S. (1994). Further evidence for the hierarchical representation of spatial information. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 137-147.
12. Hommel, B. (1993a). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
13. Hommel, B. (1993b). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208-222.
14. Hommel, B. (1994a). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity. Psychological Research, 56, 179-184.
15. Hommel, B. (1994b). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
16. Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 764-775.
17. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus -response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
18. Ládavas, E. (1990). Some aspects of spatial stimulus-response compatibility in adults and normal children. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 145-162). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
19. Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115-130.
20. Lu, C.-H. (1997). Correspondence effects for irrelevant information in choice-reaction tasks: Characterizing the stimulus-response relations and the processing dynamics. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 85-117). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
21. McNamara, T.P., Hardy, J.K., & Hirtle, S.C. (1989). Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 211-227.
22. Merrill, A.A., & Baird, J.C. (1987). Semantic and spatial factors in environmental memory. Memory & Cognition, 15, 101-108.
23. Mewaldt, S.P., Connelly, C.L., & Simon, J.R. (1980). Response selection in choice reaction time: Test of a buffer model. Memory & Cognition, 8, 606-611.
24. Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G.P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664-673.
25. Proctor, R.W., Lu, C.-H., Wang, H., & Dutta, A. (1995). Activation of response codes by relevant and irrelevant stimulus information. Acta Psychologica, 90, 275-286.
26. Proctor, R.W., & Reeve, T.G. (1990). Research on stimulus-response compatibility: Toward a comprehensive account. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 483-494). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
27. Proctor, R.W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11-37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
28. Reeve, T.G., Proctor, R.W., Weeks, D.J., & Dornier, L. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 453-460.
29. Roswarski, T.E., & Proctor, R.W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 59, 196-211.
30. Simon, J.R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.
31. Simon, J.R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
32. Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422-437.
33. Stoffer, T.H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127-135.
34. Stoffer, T.H., & Ulmiltà, C. (1997). Spatial stimulus coding and the focus of attention in S-R compatibility and the Simon effect. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 181-208). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
35. Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
36. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North Holland.
37. Wallace, R.J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
38. Wallace, R.J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163-168.
39. 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.