Impact of task demands on spatial stimulis-response compatibility

Zeitschrift fur Psychologie

Volumn 209, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 205-226

  Nattkemper, Dieter ^a   Prinz, Wolfgang ^b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

Directionbased compatibility; Endpoint compatibility; Position based compatibility; Referential coding; Spatial stimulus response compatibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044529301     PISSN: 00443409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1026//0044-3409.209.3.205     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ehrenstein, W. H. (1994). The Simon effect and visual motion. Psychological Research, 56, 163-169.
2. Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheelrotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331-342.
3. Greenwald, A. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideomotor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
4. Hommel, B. (1996). 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.
5. Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes. Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 247-273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Hommel, B. & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1996). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
7. Hommel, B., Müsseier, J., Aschersleben, G. & Prinz, W. (2000, submitted). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action.
8. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T. & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for S-R compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
9. Lippa, Y. (1996). A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 950-971.
10. Loveless, N. E. (1962). Direction-of-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics, 5, 357-383.
11. Mack, A., Heuer, F., Fendrich, R., Vilardi, K. & Chambers, D. (1985). Induced motion and oculomotor capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 77(3), 329-345.
12. Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence for the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231-240.
13. Michaels, C. F. & Stins, J. F. (1996). 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.
14. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 167201). Berlin: Springer.
15. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
16. Proctor, R. W. & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
17. 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, 81-91.
18. Rosenbaum, D. A., Loukopoulos, L. D., Meulenbroek, R. G. J., Vaughan, J. & Engelbrecht, S. E. (1995). Planning reaches by evaluating stored postures. Psychological Review, 102, 28-67.
19. Rosenbaum, D. A. Meulenbroek, R.G. J. & Vaughan, J. (1999). Remembered positions: Stored locations or stored positions? Experimental-Brain Research, 124, 503-512
20. Rosenbaum, D. A. Meulenbroek, R. G. J., Vaughan, J. & Jansen, J. (1999). Coordination of reaching and grasping by capitalizing on obstacle avoidance and other constraints. Experimental Brain Research, 128, 92-100.
21. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.
22. 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.
23. Smyth, M. M. (1984). Memory for movements. In M. M. Smyth & A. M. Wing (Eds.), The psychology of human movement (pp. 83-117). London: Academic Press.
24. Stürmer, B. (1997). Organisationsprinzipien an der Schnittstelle zwischen Wahrnehmung und Handlung. Kompatibilitätseffekte unter Venvendung dynamischer Reiz- und Reaktionseigenschaften [Organizational principles at the interface of perception and action: Compatibility effects using dynamic stimulus and response features]. Aachen: Shaker.
25. Stürmer, B., Aschersleben. G. & Prinz, W. (2000, in press). Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: A study on imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
26. Umiltà, C. & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R.W. Proct or & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.