Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 45-73

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

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; LEARNING; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REVIEW;

FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; GENERALIZATION, RESPONSE; GENERALIZATION, STIMULUS; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0043280846     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196468     Document Type: Article

References (112)

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. ANDRE, A. D., HASKELL, I., & WICKENS, G. D. (1991). S-R compatibility effects with orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1546-1550). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
3. BÄCHTOLD, D., BAUMÜLLER, M., & BRUGGER, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731-735.
4. BANICH, M. T., & FEDERMEIER, K. D. (1999). Categorical and metric spatial processes distinguished by task demands and practice. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 153-166.
5. BAUER, D. W., & MILLER, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367-380.
6. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
7. BIEL, G. A., & CARSWELL, C. M. (1993). Musical notation for the keyboard: An examination of stimulus-response compatibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 433-452.
8. BOWERMAN, M. (1989). Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive predispositions play? In M. L. Rice & R. L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 133-169). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
9. BRADSHAW, J. L., BRADSHAW, J. A., & NETTLETON, N. C. (1990). Abduction, adduction and hand differences in simple and serial movements. Neuropsychologia, 28, 917-931.
10. BRADY, N. (1997). Spatial scale interactions and image statistics. Perception, 26, 1089-1100.
11. BREBNER, J., SHEPHARD, M., & CAIRNEY, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1-15.
12. BRIDGEMAN, B. (1999). Separate representations of visual space for perception and visually guided behavior. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 3-13). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13. BRIDGEMAN, B. (2000). Interactions between vision for perception and vision for behavior. In Y. Rossetti & A. Revonsuo (Eds.), Beyond dissociation: Interaction between dissociated implicit and explicit processing. Advances in consciousness research (pp. 17-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. CARLSON-RADVANSKY, L. A., & IRWIN, D. E. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition, 46, 223-244.
15. CHAMBERS, K. W., McBEATH, M. K., SCHIANO, D. J., & METZ, E. G. (1999). Tops are more salient than bottoms. Perception & Psycho-physics, 61, 625-635.
16. CHASE, W. G., & CLARK, H. H. (1971). Semantics in the perception of verticality. British Journal of Psychology, 62, 311-326.
17. 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.
18. CHO, Y. S., & PROCTOR, R. W. (in press). Influence 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 & Psychophysics.
19. CLARK, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic Press.
20. CLARK, H. H., & CHASE, W. G. (1974). Perceptual coding strategies in the formation and verification of descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 2, 101-111.
21. COOPER, L. A., & SHEPARD, R. N. (1975). Mental transformation in the identification of left and right hands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 48-56.
22. COTTON, B., TZENG, O. J. L., & HARDYCK, C. (1977). A response instruction by visual-field interaction: S-R compatibility effect or ? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 10, 475-477.
23. COTTON, B., TZENG, O. J. L., & HARDYCK, C. (1980). Role of cerebral hemispheric processing in the visual half-field stimulus-response compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 6, 13-23.
24. DECETY, J. (1996). The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery. Behavioural Brain Research, 77, 45-52.
25. DUTTA, A., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 801-809.
26. EHRENSTEIN, W. H., SCHROEDER-HEISTER, P., & HEISTER, G. (1989). Spatial S-R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus-response relationship. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 215-220.
27. FARRELL, W. W. (1979). Coding left and right. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 42-51.
28. 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.
29. GARNHAM, A. (1989). A unified theory of the meaning of some spatial relational terms. Cognition, 31, 45-60.
30. HAYWARD, W. G., & TARR, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55, 39-84.
31. HEISTER, G., SCHROEDER-HEISTER, P., & EHRENSTEIN, W. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
32. HELLIGE, J. B., & MICHIMATA, C. (1989). Categorization versus distance: Hemispheric differences for processing spatial information. Memory & Cognition, 17, 770-776.
33. HOMMEL, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55, 208-222.
34. HOMMEL, B. (1994). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 179-184.
35. 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.
36. HOMMEL, B., & LIPPA, Y. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 370-374.
37. HOMMEL, B., & PRINZ, W. (EDS.) (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
38. HUMMEL, J. E., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
39. JUST, M. A., & CARPENTER, P. A. (1975). The semantics of locative information in pictures and mental images. British Journal of 'Psychology, 66, 427-441.
40. KLAPP, S. T., GREIM, D. M., MENDICINO, C. M., & KOENIO, R. S. (1979). Anatomic and environmental dimensions of stimulus-response compatibility: Implication for theories of memory coding. Acta Psychologica, 43, 367-379.
41. KLEINSORGE, T. (1999). Die Kodierungsabhängigkeit orthogonaler Reiz-Reaktions-Kompatibilität [Coding specificity of orthogonal S-R compatibility]. Zeitshrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 46, 249-264.
42. KORNBLUM, S., HASBROUCQ, T., & OSMAN, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility, A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
43. KOSSLYN, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. KOSSLYN, S. M., CHABRIS, C. F., MARSOLEK, C. J., & KOENIG, O. (1992). Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: Computational analyses and computer simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 562-577.
45. KOSSLYN, S. M., KOENIG, O., BARRETT, A., CAVE, C. B., TANG, J., & GABRIELI, J. D. E. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 723-735.
46. KOSSLYN, S. M., MALJKOVIC, V., HAMILTON, S. E., HORWITZ, G., & THOMPSON, W. L. (1995). Two types of image generation: Evidence for left and right hemisphere processes. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1485-1510.
47. KOSSLYN, S. M., THOMPSON, W. L., GITELMAN, D. R., & ALPERT, N. M. (1998). Neural systems that encode categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: PET investigations. Psychobiology, 26, 333-347.
48. LÀDAVAS, E. (1987). Influence of handedness on spatial compatibility effects with perpendicular arrangement of stimuli and responses. Acta Psychologica, 64, 13-23.
49. LÀDAVAS, E. (1988). Asymmetries in processing horizontal and vertical dimensions. Memory & Cognition, 16, 377-382.
50. LÀDAVAS, E., & MOSCOVITCH, M. (1984). Must egocentric and environmental frames of reference be aligned to produce spatial S-R compatibility effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 205-215.
51. LAENG, B. (1994). Lateralization of categorical and coordinate spatial functions: A study of unilateral stroke patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 189-203.
52. LAMBERTS, K., TAVERNIER, G., & D'YDEWALLE, G. (1992). Effect of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115-130.
53. LANDAU, B., & JACKENDOFF, R. (1993). "What" and "where" in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 16, 217-238.
54. LEARMOUNT, D., & NORRIS, G. (1990, October 31-November 6). Lessons to be learned. Flight International, pp. 24-26.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. LU, C. H., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location dimension as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 286-298.
58. LU, C. H., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1998). Mapping effects for orthogonally oriented stimulus and response sets [abstract]. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (p. 165). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
59. 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.
60. MICHAELS, C. F. (1989). S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 262-272.
61. 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.
62. MICHAELS, C. F., & STINS, J. F. (1997). An ecological approach to stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 333-360). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
63. MILLER, R. R., & GRACE, R. C. (2003). Conditioning and learning. In I. B. Wiener (Ed. in Chief) and A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 4. Experimental psychology (pp. 357-397). New York: Wiley.
64. NICOLETTI, R., ANZOLA, G. P., LUPPINO, G., RIZZOLATTI, G., & UMILTÀ, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 664-673.
65. NICOLETTI, R., & UMILTÀ, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 164-169.
66. NICOLETTI, R., & UMILTÀ, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144-150.
67. O'LEARY, M. J., & BARBER, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 830-844.
68. OLSON, G. M., & LAXAR, K. (1973). Asymmetries in processing the terms "right" and "left." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 284-290.
69. OLSON, G. M., & LAXAR, K. (1974). Processing the terms right and left: A note on left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 1135-1137.
70. PALEF, S. R., & OLSON, D. R. (1975). Spatial and verbal rivalry in a Stroop-like task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 201-209.
71. PARSONS, L. M. (1987a), Imagined spatial transformation of one's body. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 172-191.
72. PARSONS, L. M. (1987b). Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 178-241.
73. PARSONS, L. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 709-730.
74. PERNER, J., & CLEMENTS, W. A. (2000). From an implicit to an explicit "theory of mind." In Y. Rossetti & A. Revonsuo (Eds.), Beyond dissociation: Interaction between dissociated implicit and explicit processing. Advances in consciousness research (pp. 17-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
75. POUGET, A., FISHER, S. A., & SEJNOWSKI, T. J. (1999). Egocentric spatial representation in early vision. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 150-161.
76. PROCTOR, R. W., & CHO, Y. S. (2001). The up-right/down-left advantage occurs for both participant-paced and computer-paced conditions: An observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, & Umiltà (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 466-471.
77. PROCTOR, R. W., & CHO, Y. S. (in press). Effect of relative position and response eccentricity on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility with joystick and keypress responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
78. PROCTOR, R. W., & DUTTA, A. (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. PROCTOR, R. W., & PICK, D. F. (1999). Deconstructing Marilyn: Robust effects of face contexts on stimulus-response compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 27, 986-995.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. PROCTOR, R. W., & REEVE, T. O. (EDS.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
83. PROCTOR, R. W., REEVE, T. G., & VAN ZANDT, T. (1992). Salient-features coding in response selection. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 727-741). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
84. PROCTOR, R. W., REEVE, T. G., WEEKS, D. J., CAMPBELL, K. C. & DORMER, L. (1997). Translating between orthogonally oriented stimulus and response arrays in four-choice reaction tasks. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 85-97.
85. 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.
86. REEVE, T. G., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 541-553.
87. REEVE, T. G., PROCTOR, R. W., WEEKS, D. J., & DORNIER, L. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 453-460.
88. ROSENBAUM, D. A. (1991). Human motor control. San Diego: Academic Press.
89. ROSSETTI, Y., & PISELLA, L. (2002). Several "vision for action" systems: A guide to dissociating and integrating dorsal and ventral functions (tutorial). In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 62-119). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
90. ROSWARSKI, T. E., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 59, 196-211.
91. RUBICHI, S., NICOLETTI, R., UNI, C., & UMILTÀ, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1353-1364.
92. SEKIYAMA, K. (1982). Kinesthetic aspects of mental representations in the identification of left and right hands. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 89-95.
93. SEYMOUR, P. H. K. (1969). Response latencies in judgements of spatial location. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 31-39.
94. SHOLL, M. J., & EGETH, H. E. (1981). Right-left confusion in the adult: A verbal labeling effect. Memory & Cognition, 9, 339-350.
95. SIMON, J. R. (1969). Reaction toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.
96. STOFFER, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127-135.
97. UMILTÀ, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-feature coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83-86.
98. UMILTÀ, C., & LIOTTI, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
99. UMILTÀ, C., & NICOLETTI, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457-471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
100. 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.
101. VIRZI, R. A., & EGETH, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304-319.
102. Vu, K.-P. L., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2002a). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
103. Vu, K.-P. L., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2002b). The prevalence effect for two-dimensional S-R compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815-828.
104. WALLACE, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
105. WANG, H., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 12011217.
106. 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.
107. WEEKS, D. J., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1991). Salient-features coding and orthogonal compatibility effects: A reply to Umiltà. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 87-89.
108. 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.
109. WEXLER, M., KOSSLYN, S. M., & BERTHOZ, A. (1998). Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition, 68, 77-94.
110. WIGHTMAN, F. L., & KISTLER, D. J. (1997). Factors affecting the relative salience of sound localization cues. In R. H. Gilkey & T. R. Anderson (Eds.), Binaural and spatial hearing in real and virtual environments (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
111. WOHLSCHLÄGER, A., & WOHLSCHLÄGER, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 397-412.
112. ZHANG, J., & KORNBLUM, S. (1997). Distributional analysis and De Jong, Liang, and Lauber's (1994) dual-process model of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1543-1551.