Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2002, Pages 1301-1315

  Cho, Yang Seok ^a,b   Proctor, Robert W ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BODY POSTURE; HAND; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME; VISUAL FIELD;

FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HAND; HUMANS; POSTURE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0036879191     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194773     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. ADAM, J. J., 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 & Performance, 24, 1582-1595.
2. BAUER, D. W., & MILLER, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367-380.
3. BEHRMANN, M., & TIPPER, S. P. (1999). Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 83-101.
4. CARLSON-RADVANSKY, L. A., & IRWIN, D. E. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition, 46, 223-244.
5. CHASE, W. G., & CLARK, H. H. (1971). Semantics in the perception of vertically. British Journal of Psychology, 62, 311-326.
6. CHO, Y. S., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 472-484.
7. CHO, Y. S., & PROCTOR, R. W. (in press). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus - response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
8. EHRENSTEIN, W. H., SCHROEDER-HEISTER, P., & HEISTER, G. (1989). Spatial S-R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus-response relationship. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 215-220.
9. HOMMEL, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus -response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281-320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10. HOMMEL, B., & LIPPA, Y. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psvchonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 370-374.
11. JUST, M. A., & CARPENTER, P. A. (1975). The semantics of locative information in pictures and mental images. British Journal of Psychologv, 66, 427-441.
12. KORNBLUM, S., HASBROUCQ, T., & OSMAN, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
13. KOSSLYN, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. LAMBERTS, K., TAVERNIER, G., & D'YDEWALLE, G. (1992). Effect of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115-130.
15. LIPPA, Y. (1996). A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 950-971.
16. LIPPA, Y., & ADAM, J. J. (2001). An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 156-174.
17. MICHAELS, C. F. (1989). S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 262-272.
18. MICHAELS, C. F., & SCHILDER, S. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: The effects of hand position and posture. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 342-348.
19. OLSON, G. M., & LAXAR, K. (1973). Asymmetries in processing the terms "right" and "left." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 284-290.
20. OLSON, G. M., & LAXAR, K. (1974). Processing the terms right and left: A note on left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 1135-1137.
21. PROCTOR, R. W., & CHO, Y. S. (2001). The up-right/down-left advantage occurs for both subject-paced and computer-paced conditions: An observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, & Umiltà (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 466-471.
22. PROCTOR, R. W., DUTTA, A., KELLY, P. L., & WEEKS, D. J. (1994). Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 42-47.
23. PROCTOR, R. W., & PICK, D. F. (1999). Deconstructing Marilyn: Robust effects of face contexts on stimulus-response compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 27, 986-995.
24. 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 & Performance, 11, 623-649.
25. PROCTOR, R. W., & REEVE, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 12, 277-285.
26. PROCTOR, R. W., WANG, H., & VU, K.-P. L. (2002). Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus-response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 59-74.
27. 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. 163-180). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
28. RIGGIO, L., GAWRYSZEWSKI, L. G., & UMILTÀ, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62, 89-100.
29. ROSWARSKI, T. E., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 59, 196-211.
30. SHAFFER, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
31. UMILTÀ, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-feature coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83-86.
32. UMILTÀ, C., & LIOTTI, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
33. 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.
34. VU, K.-P. L., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815-828.
35. VU, K.-P. L., PROCTOR, R. W., & PICK, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial incompatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research, 64, 25-40.
36. WEEKS, D. J., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus-response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.
37. WEEKS, D. J., PROCTOR, R. W., & BEYAK, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: Evidence for spatial coding. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 367-383.