Is direction position? Position- And direction-based correspondence effects in tasks with moving stimuli

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 467-506

  Bosbach, Simone ^a   Prinz, Wolfgang ^a   Kerzel, Dirk ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPUTERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTION PERCEPTION; MOVEMENT; SPACE PERCEPTION; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 17644400998     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980443000016     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Boman, D. K., & Hotson, J. R. (1992). Predictive smooth pursuit eye movements near abrupt changes in motion direction. Vision Research, 32(4), 675-689.
2. Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Kerzel, D. (2004). A Simon-effect with stationary moving stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(1), 39-55.
3. De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
4. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36(12), 1827-1837.
5. Ehrenstein, W. H. (1994). The Simon effect and visual motion. Psychological Research, 56(3), 163-169.
6. Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence From psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 837-854.
7. Eimer, M., Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1995). S-R compatibility and response selection. Acta Psychologica, 90, 301-313.
8. Exner, S. (1888). Über optische Bewegungsempfindungen [On optical sensations of motion]. Biologisches Centralblatt, 8, 437-448.
9. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimuli and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
10. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208-222.
11. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1-2), 183-216.
12. Hommel, B., & Lippa, Y. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(3), 370-374.
13. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC). A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-878.
14. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(2), 201-211.
15. Kerzel, D. (2000). Eye movements and visible persistence explain the mislocalization of the final position of a moving target. Vision Research, 40(27), 3703-3715.
16. Kerzel, D., Hommel, B., & Bekkering, H. (2001). A Simon-effect induced by induced motion: Evidence for a linkage between cognitive and motor maps. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(5), 862-874.
17. Koenderink, J. J. (1990). The brain a geometry engine. Psychological Research, 58, 596-616.
18. Kornblum, S. (1991). Stimulus-response coding in four classes of stimulus-response ensembles. In J. Requin & G. E. Stelmach (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 3-15). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
19. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for S-R compatibility - A model and a taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
20. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855-875.
21. Kowler, E. (1989). Cognitive expectations, not habits, control anticipatory smooth oculomotor pursuit. Vision Research, 29(9), 1049-1057.
22. Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B., & Blaser, E. (1995). The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Research, 35(13), 1897-1916.
23. Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79(2), 115-130.
24. Lotze, R. H. (1852). Medicinische Psychologie oder die Physiologie der Seele [Medical psychology or the physiology of the soul]. Leipzig, Germany: Weidmann.
25. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon und spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 174-207.
26. Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparant motion: Evidence for the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231-240.
27. Michaels, C. F. (1993). Destination compatibility, affordances, and coding rules: A reply to Proctor, Van Zandt, Lu, and Weeks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(5), 1121-1127.
28. Nattkemper, D., & Prinz, W. (2001). Impact of task demands on spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 209, 205-226.
29. Newsome, W. T., Britten, K. H., & Movshon, J. A. (1989). Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision, Nature, 341(6237), 52-54.
30. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with mention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception anil Performance, 15(1), 164-169.
31. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144-150.
32. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3-25.
33. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. N. W. Prinz (Ed.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 167-201). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
34. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129-154.
35. Proctor, R. W., Van Zandt, T., Lu, C.-H., & Weeks, D. J. (1993). Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or directional coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(1), 81-91.
36. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Set- and element-level stimulus-response compatibility effects for different manual response sets. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(4), 351-365.
37. Proctor, R. W., Wang, H., & Vu, K. P. (2002). Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus-response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(1), 55-74.
38. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favour of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31-40.
39. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.
40. 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: An integrated perspective (pp. 163-180). Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier.
41. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
42. Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attention focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127-135.
43. Stoffer, T. H., & Umiltà, C. (1997). Spatial stimulus coding and the focus of attention in S-R compatibility and the Simon effect. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 181-208). Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier.
44. Tynan, P. D., & Sekuler, R. (1982). Motion processing in peripheral vision: Reaction time and perceived velocity. Vision Research, 22(1), 61-68.
45. Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
46. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457-471). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In T. G. Reeves &. R. W. Proctor (Ed.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier.
48. Van der Heijden, A. H. C., Müsseler, J., & Bridgeman, B. (1999). On the perception of position. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 19-37). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
49. Van Donkelaar, P. (1999). Spatiotemporal modulation of attention during smooth pursuit eye movements. Neuroreport, 10(12), 2523-2526.
50. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354-360.
51. Yasui, S., & Young, L. R. (1975). Perceived visual motion as effective stimulus to pursuit eye movement system. Science, 190(4217), 906-908.