Responding to object files: Automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus-response compatibility effects

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 567-580

  Hommel, Bernhard ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COLOR VISION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; COLOR PERCEPTION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0040077742     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980143000361     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. De Jong, R., Liang, C.C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial S-R 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., Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1995). S-R compatibility and response selection. Acta Psychologica, 90, 301-313.
4. Eriksen, C.W., & Rohrbaugh, J.W. (1970). Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 330-342.
5. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Heister, G., Ehrenstein, W.H., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1987). Spatial S-R compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions: Effects of irrelevant stimulus location. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 195-201.
7. Henderson, J.M. (1994). Two representational systems in dynamic visual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 410-426.
8. Henderson, J.M., & Anes, M.D. (1994). Roles of object-file review and type priming in visual identification within and across eye-fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 826-839.
9. Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
10. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
11. Hommel, B. (1995). Conflict versus misguided search as explanation of S-R correspondence effects. Acta Psychologica, 59, 37-51.
12. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
13. Hommel, B. (2002). Time course of feature binding. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. Hommel, B., & Knuf, L. (2000). Action related determinants of spatial coding in perception and memory. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K.F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition II: Integrating abstract theories, empirical studies, formal methods, and practical applications (pp. 387-398). Berlin: Springer.
15. Hommel, B., & Lippa, Y. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 370-374.
16. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (in press). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
17. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B.J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
18. Kerzel, D., Hommel, B., & Bekkering, H. (2001). A Simon effect induced by induced motion: Evidence for a direct linkage between cognitive and motor maps. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 862-874.
19. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
20. Leslie, A.M., Xu, E., Tremoulet, P.D., & Scholl, B.J. (1998). Indexing and the object concept: Developing "what" and "where" systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 10-18.
21. 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.
22. Lu, C.-K., & Proctor, R.W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
23. Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous models of human information processing: In search of partial output Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 273-296.
24. Milner, A.D., & Goodale, M.A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: University Press.
25. Nissen, M.J. (1985). Accessing features and objects: Is location special? In M.I. Posner & O.S.M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 205-219). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Posner, M.I., Snyder, C.R.R., & Davidson, B.J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160-174.
27. Richardson, D.C., & Spivey, M.J. (2000). Representation, space, and Hollywood Squares: Looking at things that aren't there anymore. Cognition, 76, 269-295.
28. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., & Sheliga, B.M. (1994). Space and selective attention. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 232-265). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Roscnbaum, D.A. (1980). Human movement imitation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474.
30. Schneider, W.X. (1995). VAM: A neuro-cognitive model for visual attention control of segmentation, object recognition and space-based motor action. Visual Cognition, 2, 331-376.
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. Simon, J.R., Acosta, K., Mewaldt, S.P., & Speidel, CR. (1976). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 16-22.
33. Simon, J.R., & Small, A.M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433-435.
34. Tipper, S.P., Brehaut, J.C., & Driver, J. (1990). Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 492-504.
35. Tlauka, M., & McKenna, P.P. (1998). Mental imagery yields stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 98, 67-79.
36. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201-237.
37. Treisman, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In A.D. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness, and control (pp. 5-35). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38. Treisman, A.M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
39. Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
40. Van der Heijden, A.H.C. (1992). Selective attention in vision. London: Routledge.
41. Wolfe, J.M., Cave, K.R., & Franzel, S.L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419-433.