Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus-response compatibility

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 59-74

  Proctor, Robert W ^a   Wang, Huifang ^b   Vu, Kim Phuong L ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONDITIONED REFLEX; HUMAN; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME;

CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; HUMANS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0036358237     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980143000163     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Adam, J.L., Boon, B., Paas, F.G.W.C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1582-1597.
2. Alluisi, E.A., Muller, P.F., Jr., & Fitts, P.M. (1957). An information analysis of verbal and motor responses in a forced-paced serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 153-158.
3. 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.
4. Cho, Y.S., & Proctor, R.M. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 472-484.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20-26.
9. 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.
10. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
11. 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.
12. Lippa, Y. (1996). A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of perceptually orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 950-971.
13. Lippa, Y., & Adam, J.J. (2001). Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility resulting from spatial transformations. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 156-174.
14. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R.W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R association strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 95-136.
15. Michaels, C.F. (1989). S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 262-272.
16. Proctor, R.W., & Cho, Y.S. (2001). The up-right/down-left advantage both participant- and computer-paced conditions: An empirical observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, and Umiltà (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 466-471.
17. Proctor, R.W., & Wang, H. (1997a). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11-37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
18. Proctor, R.W., & Wang, H. (1997b). Set- and element-level stimulus-response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 351-365.
19. Umiltà, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-feature coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83-86.
20. Virzi, R.A., & Egeth, H.E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304-319.
21. Wang, H., & Proctor, R.W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201-1217.
22. 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.