Preparation for horizontal or vertical dimensions affects the right-left prevalence effect

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 69, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1242-1252

  Nishimura, Akio ^a   Yokosawa, Kazuhiko ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36148974324     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193959     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. ADAM, J. J., HOMMEL, B., & UMILTÀ, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 302-358.
2. ADAM, J. J., HOMMEL, B., & UMILTÀ, C. (2005). Preparing for perception and action (II): Automatic and effortful processes in response cueing. Visual Cognition, 12, 1444-1473.
3. BREBNER, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice. Acta Psychologica, 37, 93-106.
4. DE JONG, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. EIMER, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 837-854.
6. GONZÁLEZ, A., MILÁN, E. G., PEREDA, A., & HOCHEL, M. (2005). The response-cued completion hypothesis and the nature of residual cost in regular switch. Acta Psychologica, 120, 327-341.
7. HEDGE, A., & MARSH, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice reaction time task. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427-439.
8. HOMMEL, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 102-110.
9. KORNBLUM, S., HASBROUCQ, T., & OSMAN, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
10. 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 & Review, 2, 174-207.
11. 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 & Performance, 26, 1515-1533.
12. MEIRAN, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
13. MEIRAN, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234-249.
14. MEIRAN, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377-399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. MEIRAN, N. (2005). Task rule-congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1023-1041.
16. MEDIAN, N., & CHOREV, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost Experimental Psychology, 52, 109-124.
17. MEDIAN, N., CHOREV, Z., & SAPIR, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
18. NICOLETTI, R., & UMILTÀ, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 333-343.
19. NICOLETTI, R., & UMILTÀ, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 211-216.
20. NICOLETTI, R., UMTLTÀ, C., TRESSOLDI, E. P., & MARZI, C. A. (1988). Why are left-right spatial codes easier to form than above-below ones? Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 287-292.
21. PROCTOR, R. W., KOCH, I., & VU, K.-P. L. (2006). Effects of precuing horizontal and vertical dimensions on right-left prevalence. Memory & Cognition, 34, 949-958.
22. PROCTOR, R. W., & REEVE, T. G. (EDS.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
23. PROCTOR, R. W., VU, K.-P. L., & NICOLETTI, R. (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 1318-1329.
24. RUBICHI, S., NICOLETTI, R., PELOSI, A., & UMILTÀ, C. (2004). Right-left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 255-263.
25. RUBICHI, S., NICOLETTI, R., & UMILTÀ , C. (2005). Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes. Psychological Research, 69, 167-178.
26. RUBICHI, S., VU, K.-P. L., NICOLETTI, R., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 201-216.
27. SHAFFER, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
28. 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. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
29. SIMON, J. R., & CRAFT, J. L. (1972). Reaction time in an oddity task: Responding to the "different" element of a three-light display. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 405-411.
30. SUDEVAN, P., & TAYLOR, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception A Performance, 13, 89-103.
31. 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.
32. VU, K.-P. L., PELLICANO, A., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2005). No overall right-left prevalence for horizontal and vertical Simon effects. Perception A Psychophysics, 67, 929-938.
33. VU, K.-P. L., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2001). Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception A Performance, 27, 813-828.
34. VU, K.-P. L., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception A Psychophysics, 64, 815-828.
35. VU, K.-P. L., PROCTOR, R. W., & PICK, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research, 64, 25-40.
36. WALLACE, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.