Mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 1515-1533

  Marble, Julie Gerred ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME; STIMULATION;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0034305652     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1515     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Barber, P., & O'Leary, M. (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activation account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135-172). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187-207.
4. 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.
5. Duncan, J. (1977). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Ehrenstein, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1998). Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks. Psychological Research, 61, 231-248.
7. 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.
8. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
9. Greenwald, A. G., & Rosenberg, K. E. (1978). Sequential effects of distraction stimuli in a selective attention reaction time task. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and performance VII (pp. 487-504). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427-439.
11. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
12. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
13. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
14. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
15. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523-553.
16. Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimulus in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166-174.
17. Logan, G., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1982). Constraints on strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 502-520.
18. Los, S. A. (1998). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologies, 94, 145-188.
19. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon effect and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
20. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
21. Proctor, R. W., & Fisicaro, S. (1977). Time, capacity, and selection between perceptual attributes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 337-348.
22. Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 27, 63-77.
23. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
24. Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). The salient features coding principle for spatial-and symbolic-compatibility effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 163-181). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
25. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
26. Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1987). An integrated computational model of stimulus-response compatibility and practice. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 1-52). New York: Academic Press.
27. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
28. 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: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
29. Stoffels, E.-J. (1996). Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: An S-R compatibility study. Acta Psychologica, 94, 227-252.
30. Stoffer, T. H., & Umiltà, 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.
31. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89-103.
32. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of LTM links and STM links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648-670.
33. Toth, J. P., Levine, B., Stuss, D. T., Oh, A., Winocur, G., & Meiran, N. (1995). Dissociation of processes underlying spatial S-R compatibility: Evidence for the independent influence of what and where. Consciousness and Cognition, 4, 483-501.
34. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
35. 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.
36. Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193-205.