The object-based simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 853-861

  Cho, Dongbin Tobin ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Affordance; Grasping; Simon task; Stimulus response compatibility; Within hand responses

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HAND STRENGTH; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 77955802949     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0019328     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Alluisi E.A., Warm J.S. Things that go together: A review of stimulus-response compatibility and related effects. Stimulus response compatibility: An integrated perspective 1990, 3-30. North Holland, Amsterdam. R.W. Proctor, T.G. Reeve (Eds.).
2. Anderson S.J., Yamagishi N., Karavia V. Attentional processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 2002, 269:1225-1232.
3. Bosbach S., Prinz W., Kerzel D. Is direction position? Position- and direction-based correspondence effects in tasks with moving stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2005, 58A:467-506.
4. Buckolz E., O'Donnell C., McAuliffe J. The Simon effect: Evidence of a response processing " functional locus." Human Movement Science 1996, 15:543-564.
5. Creative Chemistry. Research Intelligence 2006, December, 30. Retrieved from http://www.liv.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue30/biocoatings.html.
6. De Jong R., Liang C.-C., Lauber E. Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1994, 20:731-750.
7. Derbyshire N., Ellis R., Tucker M. The potentiation of two components of the reach-to-grasp action during object categorisation in visual memory. Acta Psychologica 2006, 122:74-98.
8. Gibson J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception 1979, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
9. Heister G., Ehrenstein W.H., Schroeder-Heister P. Spatial S-R compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions: Effects of irrelevant stimulus location. Perception & Psychophysics 1987, 42:195-201.
10. Katz A.N. Spatial compatibility effects with hemifield presentation in a unimanual two-finger task. Canadian Journal of Psychology 1981, 35:63-68.
11. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 1990, 97:253-270.
12. Lu C.-H., Proctor R.W. The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1995, 2:174-207.
13. Michaels C.F. S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1988, 14:231-240.
14. Michaels C.F. Destination compatibility, affordances, and coding rules: A reply to Proctor, Van Zandt, Lu, and Weeks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1993, 19:1121-1127.
15. Nicoletti R., Anzola G.P., Luppino G., Rizzolatti G., Umilta C. Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1982, 8:664-673.
16. Phillips J.C., Ward R. S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition 2002, 9:540-548.
17. Proctor R.W., Reeve T.G. Research on stimulus-response compatibility: Toward a comprehensive account. Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective 1990, 483-494. North Holland, Amsterdam. R.W. Proctor, T.G. Reeve (Eds.).
18. Riggio L., Iani C., Gherri E., Benatti F., Rubichi S., Nicoletti R. The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychologica 2008, 127:449-458.
19. Schneider W. MEL professional users guide 1995, Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA.
20. Simon J.R. The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. Stimulus-response compatibility. An integrated perspective 1990, 31-86. Elsevier, Amsterdam. R.W. Proctor, T.G. Reeve (Eds.).
21. Symes E., Ellis R., Tucker M. Dissociating space-based and object-based affordances. Visual Cognition 2005, 12:1337-1361.
22. Tipper S.P., Paul M.A., Hayes A.E. Vision for action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 493-498.
23. Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24:830-846.
24. Tucker M., Ellis R. The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition 2001, 8:769-800.
25. Weigand K., Wascher E. Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: Evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:453-464.
26. Zhang J., Kornblum S. Distributional analysis and De Jong and Liang and Lauber's (1994). dual-process model of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1997, 23:1543-1551.