Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 539-556

  Vu, Kim Phuong L ^a,b   Proctor, Robert W ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONDITIONED REFLEX; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION; REACTION TIME;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 2142820855     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724980343000387     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Baldo, J. V., Shimamura, A. P., & Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 427-437.
2. Barber, P., & O'Leary, M. (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activation account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135-172). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. Deininger, R. L., & Fitts, P. M. (1955). Stimulus-response compatibility, information theory, and perceptual-motor performance. In H. Quastler (Ed.), Information theory in psychology: Problems and method (pp. 316-341). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
4. De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologien, 88, 187-207.
5. Duncan, J. (1977a). Response selection errors in spatial choice reaction tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 415-423.
6. Duncan, J. (1977b). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Duncan, J. (1978). Response selection in spatial choice reaction: Further evidence against associative models. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 429-440.
8. Ehrenstein, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1998). Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks. Psychological Research, 61, 231-248.
9. Eimer, M. (1995). S-R compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 837-854.
10. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20-26.
11. Heister, G., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1994). Spatial S-R compatibility: Positional instructions vs. compatibility instruction. Acta Psychologica, 85, 15-24.
12. Hommel, B. (1993). Relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
13. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
14. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
15. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R associations strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 95-136.
16. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002a). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance Vol. XIX (pp. 443-473). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
17. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002b). Mixing location irrelevant and relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory & Cognition, 30, 281-294.
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 (pp. 11-37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
19. Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 59, 196-211.
20. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
21. Stoffels, E. J. (1996a). On stage robustness and response selection routes: Further evidence. Acta Psychologica, 91, 67-88.
22. Stoffels, E. J. (1996b). Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: An S-R compatibility study. Acta Psychologica, 94, 227-252.
23. Van Duren, L., & Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica, 69, 83-94.
24. Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201-1217.