Tailoring perception and action to the task at hand

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 579-592

  Memelink, Jiska ^a,b   Hommel, Bernhard ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MOVEMENT; COGNITION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LOGIC; NETHERLANDS; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STIMULUS RESPONSE; STRATEGIC PLANNING; TASK PERFORMANCE; VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT;

EID: 33745345068     PISSN: 09541446     EISSN: 14640635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09541440500423228     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
3. Beringer, J. (1999). ERTS [Software]. Frankfurt: BeriSoft Corporation.
4. Cohen, J. D., Braver, T. S., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1998). A computational approach to prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, and schizophrenia: Recent developments and current challenges. In A. C. Roberts, T. W. Robbins, & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), The prefrontal cortex: Executive and cognitive functions (pp. 195-220). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5. 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.
6. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.
7. Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over above-below spatial codes. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 102-110.
8. 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: Elsevier.
9. 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, 849-878.
10. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T, & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
12. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
13. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174-207.
14. Marble, J. G., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1515-1533.
15. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
16. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
17. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 333-343.
18. Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory and Cognition, 27, 63-77.
19. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Mixing location-irrelevant and location-relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory and Cognition, 30, 281-293.
20. Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Marble, J. G. (2003). Spatial compatibility effects are eliminated when intermixed location-irrelevant trials produce the same spatial codes. Visual Cognition, 10, 15-50.
21. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes. Psychological Research, 69, 167-178.
22. Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
23. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, C. (2000). The role of LTM links and STM links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648-670.
24. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 813-828.
25. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect for two-dimensional S-R compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 815-828.
26. Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal compatibility: Left-right prevalence with bimanual keypresses. Psychological Research, 64, 25-40.
27. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.