Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli

Psychological Research

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 199-207

  Kunde, Wilfried ^a   Wühr, Peter ^b  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COLOR VISION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COLOR PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REVERSAL LEARNING; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 16544381078     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-003-0156-3     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Altarriba, J. & Soltano, E. (1996). Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents. Memory & Cognition, 24, 700-711.
2. Cho, Y. S. & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73.
3. Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Affektive Blindheit gegenüber reaktionskompatiblen Stimuli. [Affective blindness for response-compatible stimuli]. In J. Golz, F. Faul, & R. Mausfeld (Eds). Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 45. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen (p. 77). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
4. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues on stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281-320). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5. Hommel, B., & Müsseler, J. (2000). Welche Handlungen machen uns blind wofür? Wie Handlungsplanung unsere Wahrnehmung beeinflusst [Which actions blind us for what? How action planning affects perception]. In D. Vorberg, A. Fuchs, T. Futterer, A., Heinecke, U., Heinrichs, U. Mattler, & S. Töllner (Eds.). Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 42. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst (p. 28).
6. Hommel., B., & Müsseler, J. (2003). Action-feature integration blinds to feature-overlapping perceptual events. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 869-937.
8. Kanwisher. N. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117-143.
9. Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1297-1303.
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. Morin, R.E., & Grant, D. (1955). Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 39-47.
12. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861-872.
13. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125-129.
14. Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In: W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and Performance, Vol. XIX (pp. 520-537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743-767.
16. Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect perceptual processing? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 137-154.
17. Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, U., & Ladavas. E. (1984). Compatibility due to coding of the relative position of the effectors. Acta Psychologica, 57, 133-143.
18. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam. North-Holland.
19. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 65-74.
20. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C. & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 431-440.
21. 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.
22. Vu, K. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial incompatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research, 64, 25-40.
23. 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.
24. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260.