Spatial Simon effects and compatibility effects induced by observed gaze direction

Visual Cognition

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 363-383

  Ansorge, Ulrich ^a  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GAZE; HEAD TILTING; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TIME; VELOCITY; VISION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 0037394153     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280244000122     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Ansorge, U. (in press). Influences of response-activating stimuli and passage of time on the Simon effect. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung.
2. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Baron-Cohen, S. (1997). How to build a baby that can read minds: Cognitive mechanisms in mindreading. In S. Baron-Cohen (Ed.), The maladapted mind (pp. 207-239). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
4. Baron-Cohen, S., & Cross, P. (1992). Reading the eyes: Evidence for the role of perception in the development of a theory of mind. Mind and Language, 6, 173-186.
5. Danziger, S., Kingstone, A., & Ward, R. (2001). Environmentally defined frames of reference: Their time course and sensitivity to spatial cues and attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 494-503.
6. Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6, 509-540.
7. Eimer, M. (1997). Uninformative symbolic cues may bias visual-spatial attention: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 46, 67-71.
8. 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.
9. Fitts, P.M., & Seeger, C.M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
10. Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Friesen, C.K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by non-predictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 490-495.
12. Hays, W.L. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
13. Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55, 280-290.
14. Hommel, B. (1997). Interaction between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 59, 248-260.
15. Hommel, B., & Lippa, Y. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 370-374.
16. Kampe, K.K.W., Frith, C.D., Dolan, R.J., & Frith, U. (2001). Psychology: Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature, 413, 589.
17. Langton, S.R.H., & Bruce, V. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6, 541-568.
18. Langton, S.R.H., & Bruce, V. (2000). You must see the point: Automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 747-757.
19. Langton, S.R.H., Watt, R.J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 50-59.
20. Logan, G.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
21. Logan, G.D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103-174.
22. Lu, C.H., & Proctor, R.W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174-207.
23. Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37, 464-472.
24. Nakayama, K., & Mackeben, M. (1989). Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention. Vision Research, 29, 1631-1647.
25. Neumann, O., Esselmann, U., & Klotz, W. (1993). Differential effects of visual-spatial attention on response latency and temporal-order judgment. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 26-34.
26. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164-169.
27. Perrett, D.I., & Emery, N.J. (1994). Understanding the intentions of others from visual signals: Neurophysiological evidence. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 13, 683-694.
28. Perrett, D.I., Hietanen, J.K., Oram, M.W., & Benson, P.J. (1992). Organisation and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 335, 23-30.
29. Perrett, D.I., Mistlin, A.J., & Chitty, A.J. (1987). Visual neurons responsive to faces. Trends in Neuroscience, 10, 358-364.
30. Pisella, L., & Rossetti, Y. (2002). Several "vision for action" systems: A guide to dissociating and integrating dorsal and ventral functions. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 62-119). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31. Proctor, R.W., & Pick, D.F. (1999). Deconstructing Marilyn: Robust effects of face contexts on stimulus-response compatibility. Memory and Cognition, 27, 986-885.
32. Proctor, R.W., & Reeve, T.G. (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
33. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
34. Ricciardelli, P., Baylis, G., & Driver, J. (2000). The positive and negative of human expertise in gaze perception. Cognition, 77, B1-B14.
35. Roswarski, T.R., & Proctor, R.W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 59, 196-211.
36. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., & Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1353-1364.
37. Simon, J.R. (1990). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-88). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
38. Stoffer, T. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 53, 127-135.
39. Stoffer, T., & Yakin, A.R. (1994). The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 151-162.
40. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
41. Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 49, 81-90.
42. Zorzi, M., Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (in press). Automatic spatial coding of gaze direction is revealed by the Simon effect. Psychological Bulletin and Review.