Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1020-1035

  Cho, Yang Seok ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^b   Yamaguchi, Motonori ^b  

^a Korea University   (South Korea)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; EYE FIXATION; HAND; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; REACTION TIME; VISUAL FIELD;

FIXATION, OCULAR; HAND; HUMANS; POSTURE; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; REACTION TIME; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 45849113605     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701467979     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1582-1595.
2. Bauer. D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367-380.
3. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 472-484.
4. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1301-1315.
5. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73.
6. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1003-1017.
7. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Representing response position relative to display location: Influence on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 839-864.
8. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (in press). When is an odd number not odd? Influence of task rule on the MARC effect for numeric classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
9. Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 32-44.
10. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Ed.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11. Kinoshita, S., & Peek-O'Leary, M. (2005). Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test reflect familiarity or affect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12,442-452.
12. Lippa, Y., & Adam, J. J. (2001). Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility resulting from spatial transformations. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 156-174.
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 & Review, 2, 174-207.
14. Michaels, C. F. (1989). S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 263-272.
15. Michaels, C. F., & Schilder, S. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: The effects of hand position and posture. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 342-348.
16. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task-irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021-1032.
17. Olson, G. M., & Laxar, K. (1973). Asymmetries in processing the terms "right" and "left". Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 284-290.
18. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2001). The up-right/down-left advantage occurs for both participantpaced and computer-paced conditions: An empirical observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, & Umiltà (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 466-471.
19. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2003). Effects of relative position and response eccentricity on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility with joystick and keypress responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 309-327.
20. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416-442.
21. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
22. Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Marble, J. G. (2003). Mixing location-relevant and irrelevant tasks: Spatial compatibility effects eliminated by stimuli that share the same spatial codes. Visual Cognition, 10, 15-50.
23. Seymour, P. H. K. (1974). Asymmetries in judgments of verticality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 447-455.
24. Umiltà, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-features coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83-86.
25. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
26. Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163-168.
27. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.
28. Weeks, D. J., Proctor, R. W., & Beyak, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: Evidence for spatial coding. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 367-383.