Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects?

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 211-231

  Müsseler, Jochen ^a   Kunde, Wilfried ^b   Gausepohl, Detlef ^a   Heuer, Herbert ^c  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^c LEIBNIZ RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WORKING ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN FACTORS   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; ERROR; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TACTILE STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 38949165060     PISSN: 09541446     EISSN: 14640635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09541440701275815     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
2. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 45-73.
3. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68, 138-154.
4. Farné, A., & Làdavas, E. (2000). Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. Neuroreport, 11, 1645-1649.
5. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, M. I. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492.
6. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
7. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
8. Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15(4), 331-342.
9. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427-439.
10. 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.
11. 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), 869-937.
12. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
13. Kerr, B. (1976). Decisions about movement direction and extent. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 3, 199-213.
14. Kunde, W., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (in press). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors.
15. Lippa, Y. (1996). A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 950-971.
16. Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (in press). Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
17. Michaels, C. F., & Stins, J. F. (1997). 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 Elsevier.
18. Nattkemper, D., & Ziessler, M. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects. Psychological Research, 68(Whole no.2-3).
19. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
20. Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785-794.
21. Proctor, R. W., Wang, D.-Y. D., & Pick, D. F. (2004). Stimulus-response compatibility with wheel-rotation responses: Will an incompatible response coding be used when a compatible coding is possible? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 841-847.
22. Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L., & Umiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62, 89-100.
23. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
24. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1935). The influence of relevance and belonging. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 574-584.
25. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 539-556.
26. Wang, D.-Y. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). The Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 261-273.
27. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 207-222.